Case 1801798/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Stanworth v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 1801798/2025
- Decision date
- 22 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Stanworth
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found Ms A Stanworth's complaint of unfair dismissal well founded. Royal Mail Group Ltd was ordered to pay £22,928.59, comprising a basic award of £14,648.77 and a compensatory award of £8,279.82. The Recoupment Regulations did not apply.
The tribunal also upheld a disability-related harassment complaint concerning a comment made about Ms Stanworth on 11 September 2024. It awarded £12,000 for injury to feelings and £1,790.77 interest. The remaining disability discrimination and harassment claims failed and were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint was well founded and succeeded. | Upheld | — | £22,929 |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment concerning a comment made about the claimant on 11 September 2024 succeeded. The award comprised £12,000 for injury to feelings and £1,790.77 interest. | Upheld | Disability | £13,791 |
| Disability discrimination | The remaining disability discrimination claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The remaining disability-related harassment claims failed and were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £36,719
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £14,649
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £8,280
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.