Case 1400247/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Dean McMullen v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400247/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge David C.
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dean McMullen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held that the Claimant's complaint that he was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail Group Limited was well-founded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records the outcome and remedy calculation rather than detailed findings on liability.
The tribunal found that the Respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures in respect of the dismissal, and increased the compensatory award by 5% under section 207A(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The tribunal also found that the dismissal was caused or contributed to by the Claimant's culpable actions, and reduced both the basic and compensatory awards by 70% under sections 122(2) and 123(6) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The total sum ordered after the uplift and reduction was £6,746.26, and the recoupment provisions did not apply because the Claimant did not claim benefits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was well-founded. Written reasons were not included in the supplied judgment because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Upheld | — | £6,746 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,746
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £10,403
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £12,085
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
3 references- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
- section 207A(2) Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
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.