Case 2601074/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Andrew Ward v DHL International (UK) Ltd Record of an attended Preliminary Hearing at the Employment Tribunal — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601074/2024
- Decision date
- 6 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchinson
- Venue
- Nottingham Heard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Andrew Ward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant applied for interim relief after dismissal. The tribunal recorded that his claim was of unfair dismissal only, including ordinary unfair dismissal, dismissal for trade union activities, and automatic unfair dismissal related to health and safety representative activities. The judgment concerned interim relief only and did not decide the substantive claims listed for final hearing.
The tribunal found that the details provided by the claimant in support of interim relief were scant. It stated that he had not set out the trade union activities said to have led to dismissal or the link between those activities and dismissal, and that he had provided no evidence that he was a health and safety representative.
The respondent provided an explanation that the dismissal related to a breakdown of trust and confidence arising from matters involving managers and colleagues. On the material before it, the tribunal was not satisfied that it was likely the claimant would establish at final hearing that the reason or principal reason for dismissal was trade union activities or another prescribed activity, so the interim relief application was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The application for interim relief based on alleged dismissal for trade union activities was dismissed. The substantive unfair dismissal claims were listed for a later final hearing and were not finally determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The application for interim relief based on alleged automatic unfair dismissal for health and safety representative activities was dismissed. The judgment records that the claimant provided no evidence that he was a health and safety representative. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- sections 128-129 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 152 Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- paragraph 161(2) of Schedule A1 to the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- Taplin v Shippam Limited [1978] IRLR 450
- Ministry of Justice v Sarfraz [2011] IRLR 562
- Dandpat v University of Bath UK EAT/1408/09/LA
- Raja v Secretary of State for Justice UK EAT/1364/09/CEA
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.