Case 1810294/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Long v XPO Transport Solutions UK Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1810294/2024
- Decision date
- 14 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Knowles Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Long
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing by video at Leeds on 14 July 2025 before Employment Judge T Knowles, with Mr J Sheng appearing for the claimant and Mr Z Malik for the respondent, the tribunal dealt with the respondent’s response time having been extended. The written judgment records that the earlier judgment upon liability dated 20 May 2025 was set aside pursuant to Rule 21(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules.
The decision is procedural rather than a merits determination. The text provided does not set out findings on the underlying claims, does not record any liability outcome on the substantive issues, and does not award any remedy. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note in the judgment.
No lay members are listed, and the document does not record any discrimination characteristic, dismissal finding, wage deduction finding, or union-related liability determination. The public record from this decision is therefore limited to the setting aside of the prior liability judgment under Rule 21(5).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The written judgment does not adjudicate any substantive claim. It states only that the judgment upon liability dated 20 May 2025 is set aside pursuant to Rule 21(5) of the Employment Tribunal Rules. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21(5) Employment Tribunal Rules
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.