Case 3302831/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v DHL Aviation UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302831/2020
- Decision date
- 20 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing by CVP at Cambridge on 4 March 2022 before Employment Judge de Silva Q.C. The judgment concerned the respondent’s strike-out application in the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal case, as summarised in the Case Management Order dated 11 January 2022.
The tribunal struck out only one part of the claim: the allegation that, at the meeting on 20 January 2020, Andrew O’Neill and Laura Stinson took inaccurate notes which were said to be 60% inaccurate, and that both were responsible for the inaccuracy. The judgment records that this specific part of the constructive unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
The tribunal refused the remainder of the respondent’s strike-out application. The judgment does not record a final merits determination or any monetary award, so the underlying constructive unfair dismissal claim appears to have continued beyond this interlocutory order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | In the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim, the allegation that the 20 January 2020 meeting was inaccurately minuted, with Andrew O’Neill and Laura Stinson said to have taken notes that were 60% inaccurate, was struck out. The remainder of the respondent’s strike-out application was refused. | Other | — | — |
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.