Case 2301182/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Marsham v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301182/2021
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reed Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Marsham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied to strike out the claim. One ground concerned alleged lack of two years' service for an unfair dismissal claim, but that issue fell away when the Claimant's representative clarified that the Claimant had not intended to bring and did not wish to pursue an unfair dismissal claim.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant's representative had acted unreasonably in the conduct of the litigation by failing to respond to correspondence from the Respondent and the Tribunal seeking clarification and progress of the case. The Tribunal considered that the correspondence required some reply and that the Respondent's requests for clarification were reasonable.
The Tribunal nevertheless refused to strike out the claim. Applying the guidance in Abegaze, it found that a fair trial remained possible, the issues had been clarified at the hearing, progress could be made, and strike out would not be a proportionate sanction.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This was a procedural strike-out judgment. The Respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused; the substantive claims were not determined. The judgment also records that there was no live unfair dismissal claim because the Claimant did not intend to bring or pursue one. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology [2010] IRLR 236
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.