Case 1305701/2020 · Employment Tribunal
in Person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 1305701/2020
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean
Parties
1 namedClaimant
in Person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dean on 8 and 18 March 2021 in the case of Mr S Hinds v DHL Services Ltd. The tribunal dealt with amendment applications rather than the merits of the underlying claims. It allowed the claimant to amend his complaint to include a further allegation described as unfair treatment, Bullying/Entrapment, in relation to race and religion.
The tribunal refused the claimant's separate application to amend his complaint to include discrimination due to race and religion in connection with an incident alleged to have taken place on 15/02/2019. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time. No monetary award was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing amendment application. The claimant sought to add a complaint of unfair treatment described as Bullying/Entrapment in relation to race and religion; the tribunal allowed the amendment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Preliminary hearing amendment application. The claimant sought to add a complaint of discrimination due to race and religion said to relate to an incident on 15/02/2019; the tribunal refused the amendment. | 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.