Case 2305051/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Pinninti v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305051/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hart
- Panel members
- Mr Townsend, Ms Lindsay
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Pinninti
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at London South over 5-8 January 2026, gave a unanimous judgment on Mr Pinninti's claims against Royal Mail Group Ltd. The complaints of unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal were each found not well founded and were dismissed. One of two victimisation complaints, concerning the contents of the investigation report, was well founded and succeeded; the second victimisation complaint, relating to the dismissal itself, was not well founded and was dismissed.
The claim for unlawful deduction of wages and/or breach of contract succeeded on the basis that the respondent accepted liability, and by consent the respondent was ordered to pay £161.20 net. A separate remedy hearing was listed for 18 February 2026 to determine remedy on the successful victimisation complaint, with directions for the claimant to file any further statement or evidence on injury to feelings seven days before that hearing.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing and written reasons will only follow if requested in accordance with the rules. No discrimination claims under a protected characteristic were adjudicated in this judgment, and no race discrimination finding was made notwithstanding the gov.uk listing category.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Complaint of unfair dismissal not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Complaint of wrongful dismissal not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint relating to the contents of the investigation report succeeded. Remedy hearing listed for 18 February 2026. | Upheld | — | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation complaint relating to dismissal not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Respondent accepted liability; by consent to pay £161.20 net. Pleaded as unlawful deduction of wages and/or breach of contract. | Upheld | — | £161 |
| Breach of contract | Pleaded in the alternative with unlawful deduction of wages; respondent accepted liability and the consent sum of £161.20 net covers this composite claim. | Upheld | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £161
- across all upheld claims
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.