Case 2401319/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Ward v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401319/2024
- Decision date
- 17 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Manchester on 17 March 2025, Employment Judge Barker sitting alone determined a preliminary issue in Mr A Ward's claim against Royal Mail Group Limited. The tribunal held that Mr Ward was not a disabled person by reason of anxiety and depression within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment records that Mr Ward's remaining claims for disability discrimination due to osteoarthritis and plantar fasciitis, together with unfair dismissal, were to be heard at the final hearing listed for 12 to 19 December 2025. No substantive liability finding or monetary remedy was made in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided only the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of anxiety and depression under section 6 Equality Act 2010. It held that he was not disabled on that basis; the remaining disability discrimination claims concerning osteoarthritis and plantar fasciitis, and the unfair dismissal claim, were left for the final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.