Case 1401270/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R. Sunder v Royal Mail Group Limited and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401270/2024
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Salter Representation
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr. R. Sunder
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the complaints of direct age discrimination, direct race discrimination, and harassment related to age or race were dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant.
The tribunal found that the Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act at the relevant time. It therefore dismissed the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments.
The tribunal also recorded that claims against Mr S Gordon and Mr Windebank had been presented outside the primary limitation period, and that it was not just and equitable to extend time.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct age discrimination was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct race discrimination was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment related to age was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Harassment | The judgment states that harassment related to race was dismissed following withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act at the relevant time, and that the complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims against Mr S Gordon and Mr Windebank were presented outside the primary limitation period and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. The claim type is not stated in the written record. | Dismissed | — |
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.