Case 6015184/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Mr G Cummings v Sandmaster (UK) Holdings Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 6015184/2024
Decision date: 4 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bansal
Venue: Midlands West

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr G Cummings

Respondent

Sandmaster (UK) Holdings Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This judgment, heard at Midlands West on 4 November 2024 before Employment Judge Bansal sitting alone, concerns the Claimant's application for interim relief against Sandmaster (UK) Holdings Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Mr S Gill, Director.

The tribunal concluded that the Claimant's application for interim relief was not well founded and refused it. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment.

This decision does not record any monetary award, and no separate remedy figure was set out in the judgment. It is confined to the interim relief application and does not contain any further findings on liability within the extracted text provided.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment is on the Claimant's application for interim relief. The tribunal found the application was not well founded and refused it.	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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.