Case 2302166/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Esume v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302166/2021
- Decision date
- 21 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms L Hawkins, Mr S Goodden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms E Esume
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought claims against Royal Mail Group Limited for unfair dismissal, age-related harassment, direct age discrimination, breach of contract in relation to notice pay, and unlawful deductions from wages.
The tribunal, sitting at London South before Employment Judge Heath with two lay members, gave oral reasons at the hearing. The written judgment records that each of the claimant's claims was not well-founded and was dismissed. No remedy was awarded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The judgment identifies the claim as age-related harassment and states it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment identifies the claim as direct age discrimination and states it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this as breach of contract concerning notice pay and states it was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states the unlawful deductions from wages claim was not well-founded 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.