Case 1305242/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Dhami v GS Associates (Scotland) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1305242/2023
- Decision date
- 7 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Akhtar REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Dhami
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant worked for the respondent across multiple Marks & Spencer store locations and argued that he had been dismissed from the Wednesbury store under a separate contract. The tribunal found that he was and remained employed under a single contract with the respondent, and that the contract allowed the respondent to vary location and hours.
The respondent had followed a redundancy process in relation to the Wednesbury role, but the tribunal accepted that this was done in error and did not end the claimant's employment. The claimant remained employed at the Tamworth and Moseley locations, and the unfair dismissal complaint therefore failed.
In the alternative, if there had been a dismissal, the tribunal found that the respondent had sound business reasons for a reorganisation, that some other substantial reason was a fair reason, and that the respondent followed a fair consultation and appeal process.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. Although the listing categories included redundancy, the issue before the tribunal was whether the claimant had been unfairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.98(1) ERA 1996
- s.98(2) ERA 1996
- s.98(4) ERA 1996
- some other substantial reason
- Hollister v National Farmers' Union
- Kerry Foods Ltd v Lynch
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.