Case 3311577/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Wright v GXO Logistics UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311577/2023
- Decision date
- 27 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Date
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was well founded and that Ms C Wright was unfairly dismissed. The respondent, GXO Logistics UK Ltd, did not attend the hearing. The judgment was given orally on 9 July 2024 at Watford before Employment Judge Reed, and the written record was sent to the parties on 27 August 2024.
The tribunal ordered a basic award of £5,968.80 and a compensatory award of £14,058.52. It recorded that the respondent had previously paid the claimant in lieu of notice, so the sums were expected to fall within the tax-free termination payment threshold and should be paid without deduction under section 401 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. The tribunal also stated that the Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996 did not apply.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Upheld | — | £20,027 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,027
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £5,969
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £14,059
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.401 Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003
- Employment Protection (Recoupment of Benefits) Regulations 1996
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.