Case 3206081/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Uthman Patel v GP Precision Engineering Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206081/2021
- Decision date
- 18 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Uthman Patel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place remotely by Cloud Video Platform at East London Hearing Centre on 20 and 21 October 2022 before Employment Judge Travers. The parties did not object to the remote format. The judgment records that the claimant was represented by Legal Comfort Solicitors and the respondent was represented by its director.
At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal noted that all outstanding sums in respect of holiday pay and notice pay had been paid to the claimant. Those claims were therefore dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not set out any separate monetary award for those claims.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim. Oral reasons were given at the end of the hearing. No further factual findings or remedy calculations are recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | At the outset of the hearing, the tribunal was told that all outstanding sums in respect of holiday pay had been paid to the claimant; the claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that all outstanding sums in respect of notice pay had been paid to the claimant; the notice pay claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and gave oral reasons at the conclusion of the hearing. | 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.