Case 2401934/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ike Efobi v Royal Mail Group Limited and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2401934/2020
- Decision date
- 24 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Ike Efobi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint described as "bullying in breach of common law" while he was still employed by the respondent. At a preliminary hearing and after a strike-out warning, he relied on written submissions and did not request a hearing on the strike-out issue.
The tribunal accepted for the purpose of the judgment that the claimant might have a reasonable prospect of showing that the respondent had bullied him and fundamentally breached his contract through breach of the implied term of trust and confidence. The difficulty was jurisdictional: the tribunal found that employment tribunals have only limited powers to hear breach of contract damages claims, and serving employees cannot bring such claims before the tribunal.
Because the claimant remained employed when he presented the claim, and because the alleged common law bullying claim depended on breach of contract damages, the tribunal held that this part of the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and struck it out. The judgment expressly stated that the remainder of the claim was unaffected and would proceed to a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The complaint was pleaded as "bullying in breach of common law" and was treated as seeking damages for breach of contract while the claimant remained employed. The judgment states this affected only this part of the claim and that the remainder would proceed to a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Article 3 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
- trust and confidence term
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.