Case 8000626/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Nicole Hogg v DPD Group UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000626/2023
- Decision date
- 9 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge R King
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Nicole Hogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing determined the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's unfair dismissal and whistleblowing claims. The claimant's wider case also included a sex discrimination claim, but the judgment records that this remained to be heard and was not determined in this decision.
On unfair dismissal, the Tribunal found that the claimant had confirmed she was employed by Jobstore UK Limited and assigned to work at the respondent's Coatbridge depot. It found that no offer of employment by the respondent had been made, even taking the claimant's evidence at its highest, and therefore there was no basis on which she could argue that she had been employed by the respondent. The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) as having no reasonable prospect of success.
On whistleblowing, the Tribunal considered the claimant's ET1, her clarification at the earlier preliminary hearing, her response to the Tribunal's order, and her evidence. It found that she had not identified a protected disclosure, and that her later reference to a health and safety concern did not meet the statutory test because she had not raised that concern with the respondent's manager and had offered to complete the task. The whistleblowing claim was also struck out under Rule 37(1)(a).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal found no basis on which the claimant could argue that she was employed by the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to identify any protected disclosure on which she could rely. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Blockbuster Entertainment Limited v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684
- Ezsias v North Glamorgan NHS Trust [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Balls v Downham Market High School & College UKEAT/0343/10
- Cox v Adecco and others EAT/0339/19
- section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996
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.