Case 1306163/2020 · Employment Tribunal

In Person For the v Ms J Tunnicliff, Solicitor — 2021

Case reference: 1306163/2020
Decision date: 1 September 2021
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge B Lloyd Signed

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

In Person For the

Respondent

Ms J Tunnicliff, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a preliminary hearing by telephone before Employment Judge Lloyd on 1 September 2021 in the joint proceedings of Mr J Hughes and Mr F Gahungu against DHL Services Limited. The respondent applied to strike out the claimants' proceedings on the basis that they had not substantially complied with the Unless Order made on 5 March 2021.

The tribunal dismissed the strike-out application and held that the claimants had substantially complied. It therefore allowed the race discrimination claims to proceed to the full hearing listed for 4 to 8 October 2021. The judgment does not determine the merits of the discrimination allegations.

The accompanying order required the respondent to serve further information requests on the claimants about the precise PCPs relied on for indirect race discrimination and the comparators, or hypothetical comparators, relied on for direct discrimination. It also directed the claimants to provide further information by 8 September 2021 and to exchange witness statements by 20 September 2021.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Race discrimination	Preliminary hearing only. The respondent's application to strike out the claimants' race discrimination proceedings for alleged non-compliance with the Unless Order of 5 March 2021 was dismissed. The tribunal found the claimants had substantially complied and ordered that the race discrimination claims proceed to the full hearing. No merits determination was made.	Other	Race	—

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.

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.