Case 3201230/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sundeep Dhillon v Gill Aggregates Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201230/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Sundeep Dhillon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was employed by Gill Aggregates Limited under a contract of employment at all material times. It held that the unfair dismissal claim was well founded and succeeded.
The tribunal also held that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongfully dismissed. It found that the claimant was in principle entitled to accrued but untaken annual leave under the Working Time Regulations 1998, with the amount of any entitlement and other remedy issues reserved to a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim is well founded and succeeds. Remedy is reserved to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was dismissed in breach of contract, i.e. wrongfully dismissed. Any loss or damage is reserved to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claimant was, in principle, entitled to accrued but untaken annual leave under regulations 14 and 30 of the Working Time Regulations 1998. The amount, if any, is reserved to a further hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
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.