Stefan-Elvis Vlase v GXO Logistics UK Ltd Heard: in public by Cloud Video Platform — 2026

At the preliminary hearing on 12 August 2026, Employment Judge Ayre held that Stefan-Elvis Vlase’s claims against GXO Logistics UK Ltd were out of time and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear them. The claims were ordinary and automatic unfair dismissal, whistleblowing detriment, harassment related to sexual orientation and victimisation. The substantive allegations were not determined.

The Tribunal refused the application to add protected disclosure and harassment allegations, allowing only the addition of John Storrs as a person the claimant said he had complained about in the alleged protected act. Applying Selkent and Vaughan, it found that the other amendments introduced substantial new factual allegations about events years earlier. Some were vague or failed to identify the person involved. They were substantially out of time and appeared to have limited prospects of success. The balance of injustice and hardship weighed against allowing them because of the difficulty the respondent would face in investigating and answering them.

The claimant’s employment ended on 10 May 2024, which the Tribunal treated as the last act complained of. The primary time limit expired on 9 August 2024. Early conciliation began on 9 April 2025 and ended on 15 April 2025; the claim was presented on 11 May 2025, approximately nine months late. Because early conciliation began after the primary deadline, it did not extend time. The claimant attributed the delay to stress, mixed feelings and wanting to see whether his dismissal was strategic. There was no medical or other evidence that health issues affected his ability to bring proceedings.

For unfair dismissal and whistleblowing detriment, the Tribunal found that presenting the claims on time had been reasonably practicable. The claimant knew of his right to claim around the time of dismissal, appealed, raised a grievance, sought union advice and researched his rights. His wish to consider whether to proceed did not prevent timely presentation. The Tribunal also found his ignorance of the time limits unreasonable in those circumstances and concluded that the further delay was not reasonable. He waited almost four weeks after receiving the early conciliation certificate before presenting the claim.

For harassment and victimisation, the Tribunal declined to grant a just and equitable extension. It considered the nine-month delay, the reasons given and the likely effect on the evidence, including the claimant’s difficulty recalling key events and identifying people involved. It found that the respondent had dealt promptly with the grievance and dismissal appeal before the primary deadline. The claimant knew the relevant facts by 10 May 2024, and no later information had emerged to alert him to a previously unknown claim. He had not shown that an extension was justified. The judgment made no monetary award.