Case 6000215/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr TH Dulak v Next Distribution Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000215/2024
- Decision date
- 4 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr TH Dulak
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant withdrew claims of harassment, defamation, deception, false imprisonment and psychological distress. Those claims were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The withdrawals were recorded as being without prejudice to the claimant's rights in other jurisdictions. The judgment also states that the withdrawal of psychological distress was without prejudice to the claimant's rights to bring psychological distress forward in compensation claims for unlawful detriments for having made a protected disclosure.
No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment, and no written reasons were provided because reasons had been given orally at the hearing unless a request for written reasons was made within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment records that the harassment claim was dismissed upon withdrawal. No protected characteristic is identified in the written judgment. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that claims of defamation, deception and false imprisonment were dismissed upon withdrawal; these do not map clearly to a more specific employment tribunal claim type in the locked taxonomy. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The judgment records that a claim of psychological distress was dismissed upon withdrawal, without prejudice to the claimant's rights to bring psychological distress forward in compensation claims for unlawful detriments for having made a protected disclosure. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.