Case 3303540/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Redman, counsel For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 3303540/2022
- Decision date
- 24 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hunt Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Ms L Redman, counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 20-21 April 2023 before Employment Judge Hunt. The claimant, Mr M Brackenbury, was represented by Ms L Redman and the respondent, DHL Services Ltd, by Ms R Kight.
The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claims brought under s.100(1)(c), s.100(1)(e) and s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 were not well-founded. No remedy was awarded in relation to that claim.
The separate unlawful deduction of wages claim was dismissed because the claimant withdrew it. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claims brought under s.100(1)(c), s.100(1)(e) and s.94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant withdrew the unlawful deduction of wages claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.100(1)(c) ERA 1996
- s.100(1)(e) ERA 1996
- s.94 ERA 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.