Case 1804812/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Gurjit Singh v Atalian Servest Security Limited AT A HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804812/2021
- Decision date
- 28 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Members
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- L Fawcett, J Noble
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gurjit Singh
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing in Leeds on 25 to 28 July 2022 before Employment Judge Lancaster with members L Fawcett and J Noble, the tribunal recorded that the claims of automatically unfair dismissal and/or detriment for raising a health and safety concern or making a protected qualifying disclosure, together with the victimisation claim, were dismissed upon withdrawal. Those claims therefore did not proceed to a substantive determination.
The tribunal upheld Mr Singh's unfair dismissal claim. It held that he had been unfairly dismissed and that it was just and equitable to reduce the compensatory award by 50 per cent. The written record states that the reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
The tribunal awarded a basic award of £7,072.00. It also awarded compensatory sums of £7,572.56 for loss from the effective date of termination until the start of new employment, £1,734.72 for a further six-month period from the start of new employment, and £225.00 for loss of employment rights, each described as reduced by 50 per cent. The total award recorded in the judgment was £16,604.28, and the recoupment provisions were said not to apply.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records the claim of automatically unfair dismissal and/or detriment for raising a health and safety concern or making a protected qualifying disclosure as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records the victimisation claim as dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant was unfairly dismissed and awarded a basic award and compensatory awards, with the compensatory element reduced by 50 per cent. | Upheld | — | £16,604 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,604
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £7,072
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £9,532
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.