Case 1800863/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Milton v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1800863/2024
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms J Lee, Mr G Corbett
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Milton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave a unanimous judgment. It found that the respondent made unlawful deductions from the claimant's wages on termination of employment and ordered the respondent to pay the claimant the gross sum of 101.03, described as one day's wages.
The claimant's complaints of harassment and direct discrimination were dismissed. The unfair dismissal complaint was found not to be well founded and was also dismissed.
The judgment does not include written reasons in the provided text; it states that written reasons would only be provided if requested by the parties within 14 days of the judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal found unlawful deductions from wages on termination and ordered payment of the gross sum of 101.03, described as one day's wages. | Upheld | — | £101 |
| Harassment | The judgment dismisses the harassment complaint but does not identify the protected characteristic in the provided text. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment dismisses a direct discrimination complaint but does not identify the protected characteristic in the provided text, so it is classified as other rather than a specific discrimination category. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £101
- across all upheld claims
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.