Case 1806044/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Geldard v Royal Mail Group Ltd HELD by CVP in Sheffield — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806044/2022
- Decision date
- 15 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Geldard
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded, on a fair reading of the claim, that no complaint was raised that the respondent was in breach of the sex equality clause in section 66 of the Equality Act 2010. No discrimination claim was therefore determined in this judgment.
The tribunal then held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaint that the respondent was in breach of any express or implied term of his contract of employment. That complaint was not determined on its merits.
The claimant's complaint of unauthorised deduction from wages was considered and failed. The tribunal dismissed that claim. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested in time.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claimant's complaint that the respondent was in breach of any express or implied term of his contract of employment. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant's complaint that the respondent made an unauthorised deduction from wages properly payable to him failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.