Case 1308979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bermingham v DHL Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1308979/2019
- Decision date
- 28 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Members
- Venue
- Midlands West
- Panel members
- Mrs B Astill, Mr G Murray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bermingham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim against DHL Services Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel before Employment Judge Woffenden with two lay members.
The tribunal decided that the claim was not presented in time. It further decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, the claim was dismissed.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states only that the claim was not presented in time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The gov.uk listing category identifies the claim as disability discrimination; the short judgment text itself does not set out the substantive allegations. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.