Case 3200589/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L. Sahota v HSBC Global Services (UK) Limited«resp_others» — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200589/2021
- Decision date
- 24 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L. Sahota
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records a single complaint that the claimant had been subjected to a detriment because he made protected disclosures, specifically that in or around January-February 2021 two GCB 3 roles, Head of ER and Head of Personal Conduct and Investigations, were filled without him being informed of the vacancies or given the opportunity to apply.
Following a preliminary hearing on 4 April 2022, the tribunal ordered the claimant to pay a deposit of £500. The claimant notified the tribunal on 11 May 2022 that he had decided not to pay the deposit.
As a result, the tribunal struck out the complaint under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the merits of the whistleblowing allegation or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The only complaint identified in the judgment was a detriment allegation based on protected disclosures, relating to GCB 3 roles being filled in or around January-February 2021. It was struck out under rule 39(4) after the claimant did not pay the £500 deposit ordered at the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.