Case 1401301/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Crowther v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401301/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedMs S Crowther
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Crowther brought complaints against Royal Mail Group Ltd of direct sex discrimination, victimisation, harassment related to sexual orientation, and direct sexual orientation discrimination. The matter was heard at Bristol Employment Tribunal from 1-5 December 2025 before Employment Judge Ferguson. The claimant was represented by Mr S Salem (non-legal representative); the respondent was represented by Mr R Chaudhry, Solicitor-Advocate.
The Tribunal found the complaint of direct sex discrimination relating to the conduct of Mr Thorpe on or around 4 November 2023 well-founded and succeeded, extending the time limit on a just and equitable basis. The complaint of victimisation also succeeded. The complaints of harassment related to sexual orientation, and of direct sexual orientation discrimination, were not well-founded and were dismissed.
The claimant was awarded £6,450 plus interest of £916.08 as compensation for injury to feelings, with the respondent ordered to pay a total of £7,366.08.
Claims and outcomes
4 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Upheld | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | Upheld | — | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,366
Source document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.