Case 2305694/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Intars Logins v Dnata Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305694/2019
- Decision date
- 27 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beale Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Intars Logins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed after the respondent concluded that he had failed to act on an email of 10 August 2019 about a delayed flight. The tribunal found that the dismissing and appeal managers genuinely believed the claimant had read the email, understood the request, and deliberately failed to take steps to assist with resourcing or handover for the delayed operation.
The tribunal rejected the claimant's case that the dismissal was because he had raised a grievance, had suffered an accident at work, had made a personal injury claim, or had sent an email about short-staffing on 4 August 2019. It found that the grievance, accident, personal injury claim and 4 August email did not form part of the reason for dismissal.
The tribunal held that the respondent had reasonable grounds for its belief, had carried out as much investigation as was reasonable, and had followed a fair procedure. It also found that dismissal fell within the range of reasonable responses, taking into account the claimant's live Final Formal Warning and the respondent's consideration of alternatives to dismissal. The unfair dismissal complaint therefore failed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint was the only matter determined at the final hearing and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal before the final hearing. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the disability discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal before the final hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- section 98 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(2)(b) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell
- range of reasonable responses
- Iceland Frozen Foods Ltd v Jones
- Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Hitt
- Davies v Sandwell MBC
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.