Mr J Davies v DHL Services Limited — 2022

Case reference: 1300182/2021
Decision date: 14 June 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Dimbylow

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr J Davies

Respondent

DHL Services Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 13 May 2022 giving an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal and harassment complaints should not be struck out for not being actively pursued.

The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal and harassment complaints. The judgment states that the unlawful deduction of wages claim may proceed.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—
Harassment	The judgment does not identify any protected characteristic for the harassment complaint. The complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued.	Struck out	—	—
Unlawful deduction from wages	The judgment states that the claim for unlawful deduction of wages may proceed; it was not finally determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.