Case 3313488/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Martin v DHL Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313488/2019
- Decision date
- 13 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant withdrew his victimisation claim by email on 25 March 2020. In that email he indicated an intention to start a claim process through the county court and gave reasons for doing so.
The tribunal considered rule 52(a), because the claimant had arguably expressed a wish to reserve the right to bring a further claim. Employment Judge Anstis was not satisfied that the email set out legitimate reasons for doing so, or how the county court could have jurisdiction over discrimination matters arising in the employment context, and therefore dismissed the claim on withdrawal.
The judgment also noted that the victimisation claim had been subject to a deposit order expiring on 26 March 2020. Because the claimant withdrew before that date, the claim was dismissed by withdrawal rather than by failure to comply with the deposit order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claimant withdrew the victimisation claim and that it was dismissed on withdrawal under rule 52(a). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 52(a)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.