Case 2204261/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Mehdinejad v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2204261/2019
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Mehdinejad
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. The Tribunal recorded that, after a case management hearing on 24 February 2020, both parties agreed that the claimant's employment by the respondent had not ended and was continuing.
Employment Judge Snelson held that an unfair dismissal claim is impossible unless there has been a dismissal. On that basis, the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out for want of jurisdiction and/or as an abuse of process and/or because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the likelihood of strike-out had been explained to the claimant and that he raised no argument against it.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out because the parties agreed there had been no dismissal and the claimant's employment was continuing. Other complaints are mentioned only as 'among other things' and are not adjudicated in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- want of jurisdiction
- abuse of process
- no reasonable prospect of success
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.