Case 2601860/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Earnshaw v GXO Logistics Services UK Ltd and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601860/2024
- Decision date
- 19 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer Tribunal
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Tribunal Member Pratt, Tribunal Member Tansley
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr M Earnshaw
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Earnshaw was unfairly dismissed by GXO Logistics Services UK Ltd because the procedure through which he was dismissed was unfair. The judgment records no remedy or monetary award.
The tribunal found that Mr Earnshaw committed gross misconduct. His wrongful dismissal claim was therefore not well-founded and was dismissed. His victimisation complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The remaining complaints were dismissed as not well-founded. These comprised automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure, automatic unfair dismissal relating to trade union membership, detriment following protected disclosures, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and failure to pay holiday pay and pension payments. The reasonable-adjustments complaint was the only complaint against Mr T Lindsay.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The dismissal was unfair because the procedure followed by the first respondent was unfair. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant committed gross misconduct. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatic unfair dismissal for making a protected disclosure was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The complaint of detriment following protected disclosures was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Trade union | Automatic unfair dismissal relating to trade union membership was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The reasonable-adjustments complaint, which was the only complaint against the second respondent, was not well-founded. | Dismissed | 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.