Case 1402414/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Janczak-Hogarth First v Royal Mail Group Ltd Second Respondent: Phil Bailey Third Respondent: Jon Parker Fourth Respondent: Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402414/2021
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Street
- Panel members
- R Hewitt-Gray, P Skillin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Janczak-Hogarth First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Exeter by CVP on 5 and 6 December 2022 before Employment Judge Street, with lay members R Hewitt-Gray and P Skillin. The judgment records the disposal of the proceedings rather than any substantive liability findings.
The claims against the First, Second and Third Respondent were dismissed because the parties had reached a binding settlement through ACAS, which was recorded in a COT3. The tribunal did not make findings on the merits of those claims.
The claim against the Fourth Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal. No financial remedy was awarded or recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claims against the First, Second and Third Respondent were dismissed because a binding settlement had been reached through ACAS and recorded in a COT3. | Settled | — | — |
| Other | The claim against the Fourth Respondent was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.