Case 2601549/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Chruscik v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601549/2023
- Decision date
- 12 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Date
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Chruscik
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the complaint of unfair dismissal. It found that the complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it had been reasonably practicable to present it in time.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of sex discrimination and disability discrimination. It found that those complaints had not been presented within the applicable time limit and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time period.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was not presented within the applicable time limit and the Tribunal found it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.