Case 3310959/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Kevin Piggott v DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3310959/2020
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Members
- Venue
- Watford
- Panel members
- Mr C Surrey, Mr D Sutton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Kevin Piggott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal at Watford heard the case by Cloud Video Platform on 5-8 April 2022 before Employment Judge Bedeau with members Mr C Surrey and Mr D Sutton. Mr Kevin Piggott appeared in person and DHL Global Forwarding (UK) Ltd was represented by counsel. The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, and only the short written record of the decision was issued.
The tribunal dismissed all four claims. It found that the claims of direct race discrimination and harassment related to race were not well-founded. It also found that the claims of unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages were not well-founded. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the written decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to race was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.