- Called: 1991
"He has impressive expertise in business immigration." “An expert in business immigration.”
The Legal 500
Satinder specialises in business immigration and employment law and is recognised in the Legal 500 as a business immigration expert.
He is an assured and effective advocate at trial and appellate level, and has considerable experience of dealing with heavy weight cases and has a reputation for remaining calm under fire and commercially focused.
Satinder works closely with his solicitors for employers and education providers on all aspects of business immigration, including global corporate immigration planning, sponsor licensing, applications under the Points Based System and employer’s liability in the prevention of illegal working. His employer clients range from blue chip companies, professional sports clubs and universities to start ups new to the UK.
Satinder is regularly instructed on applications under the Tier 1(Entrepreneur) and Tier 1(Investor) routes and routes outside the PBS.
He has been delivering seminars nationally to leading firms on business immigration for 4 years that are highly regarded.
Satinder is a very experienced work and employment lawyer for businesses, with particular expertise in discrimination, TUPE, restrictive covenants, breach of confidentiality and partnership dispute cases.
He has also represented educational institutions in a number of discrimination claims in the civil courts.
Satinder returned to Chambers in 2012 after 3 very successful years in a leading regional firm as an employed barrister where he gained an invaluable experience working with a range of commercial clients and clients from the not-for profit and charitable sector.
“He has impressive expertise in business immigration.”
The Legal 500 UK 2016
“A business immigration expert.”
The Legal 500 UK 2015
Satinder Gill also accepts Public Access instructions and regularly advises HR directors and senior executives under the Scheme.
Employment Lawyers Association, Bar Pro Bono Unit
Punjabi, basic Hindi and French.
Adama and Partnerships in Care Ltd  UKEAT 0047/14/1206
The ET found a dismissal fair following a concession by the claimant, a nurse, that had he used excessive force in restraining a patient, such conduct merited dismissal. The claimant appealed on the ground that the ET had not itself reached a conclusion that the sanction was a fair one. The EAT found that the ET had failed to expressly make such a finding and that there was no room to infer the same from its other conclusions. Question of remedy remitted to a fresh tribunal, but on basis that ET’s findings as to other aspects of the dismissal remained intact.
Sanders and Newham Sixth Form College  EWCA Civ 734
Claim by a teacher for disability discrimination by failure to make reasonable adjustments. First appeal to consider the guidance in the EAT decisions in Ashton and Rowan, which the Court of Appeal endorsed.
In a tripartite arrangement between contract workers, employment agencies and an end user, the contract workers complained that the end user’s ban against them working on its sites was an act extending over a period under section 68(7) of the RRA 1976.
The Court found that the end user’s conduct did not extend beyond the last instance on which the ban was invoked as there was no on-going relationship between the parties.
Claim for damages against the employer for personal injury caused negligently or in breach of the implied term as to trust and confidence, in circumstances ultimately leading to dismissal – scope of such a claim in the light of Johnson and Unisys Ltd. The case went on further appeal to the House of Lords with Eastwood and Magnox Electric plc  ICR 1064.
Virk and Gan Life Holdings plc  Lloyd’s Rep IR 159 CA
Claim on an insurance policy for critical illness payment. A limitation issue arose. The insurance policy provided for a condition precedent to liability, so that it was not a classical indemnity contract.
Rafiq and Secretary of State for the Home Department  Imm AR 193 CA
The Secretary of State could revoke a decision to grant indefinite leave to remain in the UK provided that it had not been communicated to the applicant under Section 4(1) of the Immigration Act 1971.