Case 1307775/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Parker v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307775/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Platt Signed
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Parker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim came before the tribunal for a preliminary hearing on 5 December 2024. Mr I Parker did not attend. The tribunal contacted him and he said that he did not intend to attend the hearing. The clerk told him that the case might be struck out and he indicated that he understood that.
The tribunal waited until 12 noon to give him the opportunity to join the hearing, but he did not do so. It also noted that he had not responded to correspondence from the tribunal or made contact with the tribunal or the respondent’s representative for a number of months. The claim was therefore dismissed under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 for non-attendance. No merits findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Dismissed under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 5 December 2024, said he did not intend to attend, and did not join the hearing when the tribunal waited until noon. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 5 December 2024, said he did not intend to attend, and had not been in contact with the tribunal or the respondent’s representative for several months. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
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.