Claimant v DHL Services Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim for want of jurisdiction under Section 108(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, indicating the claimant did not have the required two years' qualifying service to bring the claim.
The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim for want of jurisdiction under Section 155 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, indicating the claimant did not meet the statutory requirements for a redundancy payment claim.
The tribunal found that at no time material to this claim was the claimant a disabled person as defined in the Equality Act 2010, and therefore dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
The tribunal struck out the race discrimination claim pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the age discrimination claim pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the sex discrimination claim pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The tribunal struck out the wrongful dismissal claim pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Facts
Miss Odogwu brought claims against DHL Services Limited including unfair dismissal, redundancy payment, disability discrimination, race discrimination, age discrimination, sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal. The matter was listed for a preliminary hearing to determine jurisdictional and strike-out issues. The claimant represented herself while the respondent was represented by counsel.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all of the claimant's claims at a preliminary hearing. The unfair dismissal and redundancy payment claims were dismissed for want of jurisdiction due to insufficient qualifying service. The disability discrimination claim was dismissed on the basis that the claimant was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. The race, age, sex discrimination and wrongful dismissal claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Practical note
Claimants must have two years' qualifying service to bring unfair dismissal claims, and must meet the statutory definition of disability to pursue disability discrimination claims; claims without factual foundation can be struck out at preliminary hearings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1308669/2023
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No