Case 2600945/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Harjoat Bhamra v A A Corporation Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600945/2022
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Harjoat Bhamra
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the attended full hearing in Nottingham before Employment Judge Hutchinson, sitting alone, the tribunal recorded that Mr Harjoat Bhamra was employed by Prestige Fleet Servicing Limited. The claim against the first respondent, A A Corporation Limited, was dismissed.
The tribunal dismissed both dismissal claims: the claim under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996 and the ordinary unfair dismissal claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also dismissed the claim for breach of contract in respect of notice and the claim for non-payment of wages. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim for unfair dismissal under section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim for unfair dismissal under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Claim in respect of notice pay; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim described in the judgment as non-payment of wages; dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.