Case 1603212/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Mr R Leeding Proserve Logistics Ltd JUDGMENT The claim of dismissal or detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure having been withdrawn by the Claimant is dismissed. The claim of unfair dismissal is struck out as the claimant’s does not have sufficient continuity of service. The remaining claims of direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability continues to a final hearing. Approved by Employment Judge S Moore Dated: 11 November 2025 ORDER SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 04 December 2025 Katie Dickson FOR THE SECRETARY TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS v Mr R Leeding Proserve Logistics Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1603212/2025
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent: Mr R Leeding Proserve Logistics Ltd JUDGMENT The claim of dismissal or detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure having been withdrawn by the Claimant is dismissed. The claim of unfair dismissal is struck out as the claimant’s does not have sufficient continuity of service. The remaining claims of direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability continues to a final hearing. Approved by Employment Judge S Moore Dated: 11 November 2025 ORDER SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 04 December 2025 Katie Dickson FOR THE SECRETARY TO EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim of dismissal or detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service. The direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability claims were not determined in this judgment and continue to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim of dismissal or detriment due to the making of a protected disclosure had been withdrawn by the claimant and was dismissed. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The direct age discrimination claim was not finally determined in this judgment and continues to a final hearing. | Other | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The direct disability discrimination claim was not finally determined in this judgment and continues to a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The discrimination arising from disability claim was not finally determined in this judgment and continues to a final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
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.