Case 2215148/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Bailey v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2215148/2023
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Bailey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr M Bailey, brought a claim against Royal Mail Group Ltd. At the hearing on 19 November 2024 before Tribunal Judge Peer, the respondent appeared through Mr B. Brown of Weightmans LLP and the claimant did not appear.
The tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim had been presented out of time. It found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim because it was reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented within the normal time limit and, in any event, the claim was not presented within any further period the tribunal considered reasonable.
The judgment also records that, following an order made on 25 September 2024, the claimant had not made any application to amend his claim to include particulars of any discrimination claims. The tribunal therefore dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held the unfair dismissal claim was presented out of time and that it had no jurisdiction to hear it. It found it was reasonably practicable to present the claim within the normal time limit and, in any event, it was not presented within any further period the tribunal considered reasonable. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.