Case 1309313/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Parmar v DPD Group UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1309313/2019
- Decision date
- 4 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dimbylow Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Parmar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing conducted remotely, the Tribunal postponed the final hearing and relisted it for 23 and 24 September 2021 at Birmingham.
By consent, the claimant was ordered to pay the respondent costs assessed at £500 by 4 February 2021. The Tribunal refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim.
The Tribunal granted the respondent's application for an unless order. It ordered that unless the claimant complied by 25 November 2020 with specified case management orders made that day, the claim would stand dismissed without further order. The reason given was that the claimant had been in breach of tribunal orders made on 14 January 2020 and had failed actively to pursue his claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The preliminary hearing did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. The final hearing was postponed, the respondent's strike-out application was refused, and an unless order was made. | Other | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.