Case 1304647/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Singh v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304647/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maxwell
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mrs Ray, Mr Kelly
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the Claimant's unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims, stating that each was not well-founded.
For the direct race discrimination claim, the Tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to determine matters concerning events in 2019 and before. It also found that the direct race discrimination claim concerning events in 2022 and thereafter was not well founded and dismissed it.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment states that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal stated that it had no jurisdiction to determine the direct race discrimination claim with respect to events in 2019 and before. | Other | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the direct race discrimination claim with respect to events in 2022 and thereafter was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
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.