Case 1302870/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M R Henriques v DPD Group UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1302870/2021
- Decision date
- 19 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
- Panel members
- Mr Wagstaffe, Mr Howard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M R Henriques
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996, finding it was not well-founded.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of direct discrimination on the grounds of race and age under Section 13 Equality Act 2010, finding each was not well-founded. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and does not set out further written reasoning or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal under Part X Employment Rights Act 1996 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The complaint of direct discrimination on the grounds of race under Section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | The complaint of direct discrimination on the grounds of age under Section 13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Part X Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 13 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.