Case 2404901/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Bailey v DHL Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2404901/2019
- Decision date
- 26 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that Mr Bailey was fairly dismissed by DHL Services Limited. No written reasons are included in the judgment text; the note records that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The Tribunal also held that the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims under sections 15 and 19 were not well founded and failed. The judgment further held that the claim for breach of contract for unpaid wages was not made out and failed.
No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claim under Section 15 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and failed. The protected characteristic is taken from the disability discrimination listing category; the judgment text itself identifies the Equality Act section but does not set out further particulars. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's claim under Section 19 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and failed. The protected characteristic is taken from the disability discrimination listing category; the judgment text itself identifies the Equality Act section but does not set out further particulars. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim for breach of contract for unpaid wages and states that it was not made out and failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- Section 19 Equality Act 2010
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.