Mr Golding v DPD Group UK Limited — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claim or, alternatively, for a deposit order. The claimant's claim form checked race discrimination, religion and belief discrimination, and other payments; the judgment described the financial matters as appearing to include breach of contract and/or unauthorised deduction from wages and/or discrimination.

The respondent argued that the tribunal was bound by the EAT decision in Stojsavljevic concerning DPD franchise agreements and that the claimant had no or little reasonable prospect of showing employee or worker status because there was no requirement of personal service. After comparing the material available, the tribunal found that the claimant's franchise agreements were not identical to those considered in Stojsavljevic and that the respondent's basis for strike-out therefore failed. The tribunal also noted that it had not had full argument on the claimant's actual agreements, had not seen the operating manual, and there was at least some element of core factual dispute.

The strike-out application was refused. The tribunal nevertheless found there was a proper basis to conclude the claims had little reasonable prospect of success because all claims depended on establishing some requirement of personal service, and the claimant's prospects of doing so were described as very slim. The tribunal decided that a deposit order should be made, with the amount to be dealt with separately.