Case 3301218/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Denyse Schwartzel v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301218/2022
- Decision date
- 1 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Denyse Schwartzel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant had previously brought proceedings against the respondent in 2019 concerning unfair dismissal and unauthorised deductions from wages. Those complaints were dismissed by Employment Judge Warren in a reserved judgment sent to the parties on 1 June 2020. Employment Judge Tynan found that the claimant’s attempt to re-litigate the unfair dismissal complaint was an abuse of process and totally without merit, and that any wages complaint was either previously determined or, if a different complaint about reduced pay in 2016 and 2017, significantly out of time with no adequate explanation.
The tribunal considered the disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment complaints separately and was not satisfied that they had previously been brought so as to create an abuse of process. However, it found that both were poorly articulated and had no reasonable prospects of success. The whistleblowing complaint did not identify the protected disclosure relied upon, why it qualified for protection, the suspension complained of, or why any suspension was because of a protected disclosure.
On time limits, the tribunal found that the whistleblowing detriment complaint appeared to concern events in 2015 and was about six years out of time. The disability discrimination complaint concerned alleged workplace adjustments and was also substantially out of time. Taking account of the claimant’s stated health, bereavement, financial difficulties and the pandemic, the tribunal nevertheless found she had been professionally advised and able to participate in tribunal proceedings between January 2019 and February 2020, and that it was not just and equitable to allow the disability discrimination claim to proceed after such delay.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as vexatious and having no reasonable prospects of success; the tribunal also stated the unfair dismissal complaint was totally without merit because it had previously been heard and dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal treated any wages complaint as unclear, but struck it out so far as pursued, on the basis that it was vexatious and had no reasonable prospects of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint concerned an alleged failure to make workplace adjustments and was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success, including because it was significantly out of time and a just and equitable extension was not warranted. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment complaint was struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success. The tribunal found it was poorly articulated, did not identify the disclosure relied on, and was substantially out of time. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 39 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Tayside Public Transport Company Limited (t/a Travel Dundee) v Reilly [2012] IRLR 755
- North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias [2007] EWCA Civ 330
- Anyanwu v South Banks Student Union [2001] UKHL 14
- section 43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 48(3) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
- just and equitable extension
- reasonably practicable
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.