Case 2409343/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Patrik Tong v GXO Logistics UK II Limited (Formerly Clipper Logistics Plc) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2409343/2022
- Decision date
- 1 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Patrik Tong
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester via CVP on 18 May 2023, Employment Judge Anderson dealt with the claimant's complaints against GXO Logistics (UK) II Limited. The written judgment records complaints of direct discrimination because of nationality and harassment related to nationality.
The Tribunal held that both complaints were presented outside the time limit prescribed by s.123 Equality Act 2010 and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. It therefore said it did not have jurisdiction to consider the complaints. No findings on the merits were made.
No remedy was recorded in the judgment. The record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record of the decision, and that the judgment was sent to the parties on 1 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers to a complaint of direct discrimination because of nationality. It was presented outside the time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment refers to a complaint of harassment related to nationality. It was presented outside the time limit in s.123 Equality Act 2010 and the Tribunal held it was not just and equitable to extend time, so it did not have jurisdiction to consider it. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- not just and equitable to extend time
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.