Case 2603563/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Kosnik v DHL International (UK) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603563/2019
- Decision date
- 24 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Kosnik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 July 2020, the claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of 300 in respect of each of the age discrimination and race discrimination claims as a condition of proceeding with them. The order required any deposits to be paid by 14 August 2020 and was sent to the claimant on 16 July 2020.
The claimant did not pay either deposit by the due date. The tribunal recorded that a payment of 500 was received late on 17 August 2020, and struck out the age discrimination and race discrimination complaints under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment stated that, unless relief from sanction was applied for and granted, the listed hearing would proceed only in respect of the remaining unfair dismissal claim, and the claimant would be entitled to a refund of the late deposit payment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The age discrimination claim was struck out under rule 39(4) because the required deposit was not paid by the date specified in the deposit order. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The race discrimination claim was struck out under rule 39(4) because the required deposit was not paid by the date specified in the deposit order. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.