Case 3201541/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Fazl Samuel v DPD Group UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3201541/2024
- Decision date
- 2 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Crosfill
- Panel members
- Mrs J Clark, Ms A Berry
Parties
2 namedMr Fazl Samuel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Fazl Samuel brought a claim of unfair dismissal against DPD Group UK Limited. The matter was heard at East London Tribunal Hearing Centre by CVP on 18, 19 and 20 June 2025 before Employment Judge Crosfill sitting with Mrs J Clark and Ms A Berry as lay members. The claimant appeared in person with the support of his wife Mrs Samuel; the respondent was represented by Fergus Curie, a solicitor.
The Tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim well-founded. For the purposes of s.119 Employment Rights Act 1996 the basic award was reduced by 50% by virtue of the claimant's conduct under s.122. The claimant had two years' continuous service, was 47 at the date of dismissal, and was paid £457.60 per week, giving a basic award before reduction of £1,372.80 (2 x 1.5 x £457.60); after the 50% reduction this was £686.40.
The Tribunal made no compensatory award under s.123, having found that had the respondent acted fairly it could and would have dismissed the claimant on the same date on which the dismissal took place. The respondent was therefore ordered to pay the claimant the sum of £686.40.
Claims and outcomes
1 claim adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Upheld | — | £686 |
Legal tests applied
4 referencesRemedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £686
- Basic award
- £686
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.