Case 1406155/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406155/2019
- Decision date
- 17 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment was given without a hearing. The tribunal recorded that the claimant had been ordered on 23 January 2020 to provide further and better particulars of her claim by 30 January 2020, and to provide a disability impact statement and associated medical evidence by 6 March 2020.
The respondent informed the tribunal that the claimant had not provided the required particulars and later stated that she had not provided the disability impact statement or medical records. The tribunal gave further opportunities and warned that the claim risked being struck out for non-compliance.
After notice was sent on 25 March 2020 that strike out was being considered because of non-compliance and because the claim was not being actively pursued, the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and had failed to comply with tribunal orders, and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. The unfair dismissal classification is supported by the listing category, but the reasons do not set out particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records orders requiring a disability impact statement and associated medical evidence. The claim was struck out for non-compliance and not being actively pursued, without determining the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.