Case 3315223/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Nicholson v DHL Services Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315223/2023
- Decision date
- 9 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davey Representation
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr R Nicholson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public before Employment Judge Davey at Cambridge by CVP on 20 September 2024, with the judgment sent to the parties on 9 December 2024. The tribunal addressed whether the claimant's complaints could proceed against DHL Services Limited (R1) or only against Wincanton (R2).
The tribunal found that Mr R Nicholson was an employee of Wincanton, and not an employee of DHL Services Limited, at the relevant time. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed against R1 because the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine it against that respondent. The unfair dismissal complaint proceeded against R2.
The tribunal made the same jurisdictional finding in relation to the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. It found that all of the alleged acts of discrimination and victimisation occurred during employment with R2, not R1, and dismissed those complaints against R1 for want of jurisdiction. All complaints brought against R1 therefore did not proceed against that respondent and instead proceeded against R2.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed against DHL Services Limited (R1) because the tribunal found the claimant was employed by Wincanton (R2), not R1, at the relevant time, so it had no jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal complaint against R1. The unfair dismissal complaint proceeded against R2. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments, pleaded as disability discrimination, was dismissed against R1 because the tribunal found the alleged acts occurred during employment with R2 and the claimant was not employed by R1 at the relevant time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine it against R1. The complaint proceeded against R2. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed against R1 because the tribunal found the alleged acts occurred during employment with R2 and the claimant was not employed by R1 at the relevant time, so the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the victimisation complaint against R1. The complaint proceeded against R2. | 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.