Case 3201442/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Butala v DB Group Services (UK) Limited (sued as “Deutsche Bank”) — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201442/2019
- Decision date
- 8 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Public
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Butala
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that in case numbers 3201442/2019, 3201693/2019, 3202720/2019 and 3201799/2020, all claims were dismissed because the Claimant withdrew them. No separate substantive findings on the merits are set out in the written record.
The record also states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed upon the Claimant's withdrawal; the judgment does not set out separate merits findings. |
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.