Case 3201466/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G S Sidhu v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025

Case reference: 3201466/2024
Decision date: 7 January 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge C Lewis Representation
Venue: East London Hearing Centre

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G S Sidhu

Respondent

Amazon UK Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal dealt with Mr G S Sidhu's claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and failure to pay outstanding holiday pay. It held that each of those claims was not presented within the applicable time limit.

On the tribunal's findings, it was reasonably practicable for the claims to have been presented in time. The tribunal therefore concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims and dismissed them.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held the claim was not presented within the applicable time limit and that it was reasonably practicable to do so in time, so it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim.	Dismissed	—	—
Wrongful dismissal	The tribunal described this as breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and held it was not presented within the applicable time limit, with no jurisdiction to hear it.	Dismissed	—	—
Holiday pay	The claim was identified as failure to pay outstanding holiday pay and was dismissed because it was not presented within the applicable time limit and it was reasonably practicable to do so.	Dismissed	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.