Case 3311656/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Dardan Zeka v DHL Services Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311656/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Ms S Williams, Mr A Hayes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Dardan Zeka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that Mr Dardan Zeka brought claims against DHL Services Limited for unfair dismissal, automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for having made protected disclosures, disability discrimination, and unauthorised deduction from wages.
The judgment states that all of those claims failed and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim for Unfair Dismissal failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims for Automatic Unfair Dismissal and Detriment for having made Protected Disclosures failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim for Disability Discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the Claimant's claim for unauthorised deduction from wages failed and was dismissed. | 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.