Case 3311560/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Martins v GXO Logistics UK Ltd and others — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311560/2020
- Decision date
- 10 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Bury St Edmunds on 14 March 2024, before Employment Judge Laidler, the tribunal considered an application by Kuehne + Nagel Limited to be removed from the proceedings. Mr J Martins appeared in person; Mrs V Martins did not attend and was not represented.
The tribunal granted the application to remove Kuehne + Nagel Limited. It found that Mr Martins had acted unreasonably within the meaning of Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 in pursuing his claim against that respondent, and ordered him to pay £625 towards Kuehne + Nagel Limited's costs.
The written record states that the reasons for the decision were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless a request was made within 14 days of the sending of the decision record.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | At a preliminary hearing, the application of Kuehne + Nagel Limited to be removed from the proceedings was granted. The body of the judgment spells the second respondent as 'Kuene + Nagel Limited'; the heading identifies it as Kuehne + Nagel Limited. The tribunal also found that Mr Martins acted unreasonably within Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 in pursuing his claim against that respondent, which led to a costs order. | Upheld | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £625
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.