Claimant v Proserve Logistics Ltd
Outcome
Individual claims
The claim of dismissal or detriment due to making a protected disclosure was withdrawn by the claimant and therefore dismissed by the tribunal.
The claim was struck out because the claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim, which typically requires two years qualifying service.
This claim continues to a final hearing and has not yet been determined by the tribunal.
This claim continues to a final hearing and has not yet been determined by the tribunal.
This claim of discrimination arising from disability under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 continues to a final hearing and has not yet been determined.
Facts
Mr Leeding brought claims against Proserve Logistics Ltd including whistleblowing, unfair dismissal, and discrimination claims based on age and disability. The claimant did not have sufficient continuity of service for unfair dismissal protection and withdrew the whistleblowing claim. The discrimination claims remain live.
Decision
At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge S Moore dismissed the withdrawn whistleblowing claim and struck out the unfair dismissal claim due to insufficient qualifying service. The direct age discrimination, direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability claims were allowed to proceed to a final hearing.
Practical note
A claimant without two years' continuity of service cannot pursue ordinary unfair dismissal but may still pursue discrimination claims which have no qualifying service requirement.
Case details
- Case number
- 1603212/2025
- Decision date
- 11 November 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No