Case 2602761/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Danvers v DHL Aviation UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602761/2021
- Decision date
- 16 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Danvers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the case was heard at Nottingham via CVP on 16 March 2022 before Employment Judge Fredericks. The claimant, Mr K Danvers, appeared in person and the respondent, DHL Aviation UK Limited, was represented by Ms E Wheeler of counsel.
The written judgment states only that the claimant's claims were not well-founded and were dismissed. It does not separate out the tribunal's reasoning by individual head of claim in the written record.
The judgment also states that full reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in writing within 14 days of the sending of the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment dismisses the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out a separate finding for this head; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment dismisses the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out a separate finding for this head; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment dismisses the claimant's claims collectively and does not set out a separate finding for this head; the claim type is taken from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.