Case 3310752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Borsellino v GXO logistics UK Limited Heard: by CVP in Cambridge — 2025
- Case reference
- 3310752/2024
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Codd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Borsellino
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr A Borsellino was employed by GXO logistics UK Limited as a warehouse operative and forklift truck driver from 19 August 2013 until his dismissal for misconduct on 2 April 2024. He presented an ET1 on 26 September 2024 after early conciliation between 21 June 2024 and 2 August 2024. The claim form pleaded unfair dismissal and also ticked the whistleblowing box, but the tribunal recorded that there were very limited particulars of the claims and no explanation of the whistleblowing complaint.
The tribunal had listed the matter to consider timeliness and jurisdiction and had made case management orders requiring compliance by 28 February 2025. The claimant did not comply with those orders, did not communicate with the tribunal after issuing the claim, and did not attend the hearing on 24 July 2025. An email was sent asking him to join by 10.15am, but he still did not appear. Mr Sands for the respondent submitted that the claim should be struck out for non-compliance and failure actively to pursue it.
Employment Judge Codd applied Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, noted Rule 39 as an alternative in cases of non-compliance, and referred to Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 in relation to compliance by litigants in person. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had missed two opportunities to explain his case, that an unless order would not be likely to be complied with, and that strike-out was the appropriate course. The claim was therefore struck out, with the tribunal noting that any reconsideration application would need to explain the failure to attend and comply with directions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim had not been actively pursued; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The ET1 ticked the whistleblowing box, which the tribunal described as presumably a s.43B ERA 1996 claim, but no particulars were provided; it was struck out for the same Rule 38 reasons. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 38(1)(c) and (d)
- Rule 39
- Rule 3 overriding objective
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12
- balance of probabilities
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.