Case 1304008/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Bonehill v DPD Group UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1304008/2023
- Decision date
- 8 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Bonehill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant applied to amend his claim to add a breach of contract complaint concerning alleged non-payment of bonuses. The tribunal refused that application. The Claimant also confirmed that he did not pursue a breach of contract complaint concerning notice pay on dismissal.
The Respondent accepted that Employment Judge Harding's decision rejecting its contract claim, sent to the parties on 8 August 2023, was correct, and withdrew its reconsideration application dated 9 August 2023.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed. His unfair dismissal complaint was therefore not well-founded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The Claimant's application to amend his claim to include a breach of contract complaint relating to alleged non-payment of bonuses was refused. | Other | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Claimant confirmed that he did not pursue a breach of contract complaint relating to non-payment for his notice period on dismissal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the Claimant was not unfairly dismissed and that the complaint was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.