Case 1400637/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400637/2023
- Decision date
- 17 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claims. The judgment records that the claimants had been given an opportunity, by letter dated 25 September 2024, to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out.
The stated reasons were that the claimants had not complied with Tribunal directions dated 8 August 2024 and 6 September 2024, and that the claims had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations or request a hearing, so the claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment states that the claims were struck out. The trade union-related classification comes from the gov.uk listing category; the short judgment text itself does not describe the underlying claim in detail. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claims were struck out. The unlawful deduction from wages classification comes from the gov.uk listing category; the short judgment text itself does not describe the underlying claim in detail. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claims were struck out. The working time classification comes from the gov.uk listing category; the short judgment text itself does not describe the underlying claim in detail. | Struck out | — | — |
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.