Case 3310974/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Mandeep Dhillon v Learning Possibilities Limited and and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3310974/2023
- Decision date
- 23 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Mandeep Dhillon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 July 2024 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, the tribunal held that the claimant's complaints against Mehool Sanghrajka had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant was not employed by Mehool Sanghrajka. Those complaints were therefore dismissed under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. No monetary remedy was determined at this hearing.
The tribunal granted the claimant permission to amend the claim to allege unfair dismissal pursuant to section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996, as set out in the claimant's application. The judgment records that the alleged disclosure was made on 27 February 2023 to Sushmita Gurung. The questions of whether the section 103A complaint had been presented in time, and if not whether it should nonetheless be considered by the tribunal, were left to be determined at the final hearing listed for 24, 25, 26 and 27 March 2025, which was to proceed before an employment judge sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause or causes of action against Mehool Sanghrajka; the complaints were dismissed under rule 37 because the claimant was not employed by him. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.