Case 1303503/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S. Reed v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1303503/2019
- Decision date
- 16 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S. Reed
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment following a hearing at Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 27 September 2019. The claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim because it had not been submitted within three months and it found that it had been reasonably practicable for the claim to be submitted in time.
The tribunal found that the disability discrimination claim was also presented outside the three-month period starting with the date of the alleged act, identified in the judgment as dismissal. However, it found that it was just and equitable in the circumstances to extend time for presenting that claim to 28 March 2019, and stated that the disability discrimination claim would continue.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed because it was not submitted within three months and the tribunal found it was reasonably practicable for it to have been submitted in time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided the disability discrimination claim was presented outside the three-month time limit, but that it was just and equitable to extend time to 28 March 2019. The judgment states that the claim will continue, so no final merits outcome is recorded. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable
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.