Case 3305178/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Renata Lapa v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305178/2023
- Decision date
- 7 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing
- Panel members
- W Smith, L Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Renata Lapa
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dismissed Renata Lapa's breach of contract complaint against GXO Logistics UK Limited as not well-founded.
It also dismissed the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability as not well-founded.
The tribunal upheld part of the reasonable-adjustments complaints. It found a failure to allow Ms Lapa to take breaks when she needed and a failure to apply the break policy. The remaining reasonable-adjustments complaints were dismissed as not well-founded.
The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint that the respondent breached the claimant's contractual terms was not well-founded. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments by failing to allow the claimant to take breaks when she needed and by not applying the break policy. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments were 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.