Case 2200738/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Singh v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200738/2024
- Decision date
- 13 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Connolly Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Singh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's race discrimination claim was withdrawn and was dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the elements of the claim concerning the claimant's dismissal in November 2021, identified as discrimination on the grounds of religion and disability, because those matters had been the subject of a previous claim submitted in January 2022 that had been withdrawn and dismissed.
The Tribunal also held that the discrimination claims concerning a final warning issued in March 2022 were not submitted within the time limit required by section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, and that the protected disclosure detriment claims were not submitted within the time limit required by section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The Tribunal therefore held it had no jurisdiction to hear those claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that the race discrimination claim was withdrawn and dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the elements relating to the claimant's November 2021 dismissal because they had been the subject of a previous claim that was withdrawn and dismissed. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Disability discrimination | The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear the elements relating to the claimant's November 2021 dismissal because they had been the subject of a previous claim that was withdrawn and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to discrimination claims about a final warning issued in March 2022, but the protected characteristic for those claims is not specified in the extracted text. The Tribunal held they were out of time under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and that it had no jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claims were held to be out of time under section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear them. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 123 of the Equality Act 2010
- section 48 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.