Case 2217528/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Gurleen Singh v The Royal Bank of Canada (London Branch) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2217528/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Gurleen Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a preliminary hearing on 6 February 2025, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £250 for each of four allegations (totalling £1,000) as a condition of being permitted to continue to advance them. The deposit order was sent to the claimant on 13 February 2025.
On 4 March 2025, the claimant wrote to the Tribunal stating that the first allegation had been withdrawn 'under protest' and enclosed a cheque for £750, covering the deposits for the remaining three allegations. Because no deposit was paid for the first allegation, Employment Judge Klimov struck out that allegation under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The struck-out allegation concerned an alleged detriment, between 26 September 2023 and 30 November 2023, of the respondent delaying the outcomes of the claimant's grievances and redundancy appeal on the ground that he had made a protected disclosure. The judgment addresses only this one allegation; no remedy was determined.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Detriment allegation that, between 26 September 2023 and 30 November 2023, the respondent delayed outcomes of the claimant's grievances and redundancy appeal on the ground of a protected disclosure. Struck out under rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 after the claimant failed to pay the £250 deposit ordered for this allegation; the claimant indicated this allegation had been withdrawn 'under protest' and paid £750 covering the other three of four allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 40(4) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.