Case 1801642/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Rodgers v DHL Services Limited Decided at: Sheffield (on the papers) On: 13 January 2025 — 2025
- Case reference
- 1801642/2024
- Decision date
- 13 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge James JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Rodgers
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 November 2024, Employment Judge James directed the claimant to give reasons why the allegations set out at paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6 and 6.4 of the list of issues should not be struck out. The stated bases were that the allegations had no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively that they were not being actively pursued.
No response was received from the claimant by the deadline of 13 December 2024. The tribunal therefore struck out those allegations under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judgment does not record any merits findings on the substance of the allegations and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | On 22 November 2024 the claimant was ordered to explain why the allegations in paragraphs 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5, 3.2.6 and 6.4 of the list of issues should not be struck out on the basis that they had no reasonable prospect of success, or alternatively because they were not being actively pursued. No response was received within the time allowed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
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.