Case 1402636/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr BJ Fernandes v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1402636/2019
- Decision date
- 28 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr BJ Fernandes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims. It did so under Schedule 1 rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2013.
The stated reasons were that the claimant had failed to comply with case management orders and had not actively pursued the claims. The judgment also records that the claimant had failed to make written representations, or sufficient written representations, explaining why strike out should not occur, and had not requested a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant failed to comply with case management orders and had not actively pursued the claims. The specific claim type is taken from the listing category/context rather than separately described in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claims were struck out under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant failed to comply with case management orders and had not actively pursued the claims. The specific claim type is taken from the listing category/context rather than separately described in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) 2013 Schedule 1 rules 37(1)(c) and (d)
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.