Case 2402027/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Simon Bacon v Royal Mail Group Limited HELD AT: Liverpool — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402027/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Mr Graham Pennie, Ms Carly Doyle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Simon Bacon
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that Simon Bacon was unfairly dismissed by Royal Mail Group Limited on 3 January 2024. The judgment records that the complaint of unfair dismissal was successful.
The complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed after withdrawal by the claimant, first by email on 9 April 2025 and then confirmed at the final hearing. The unfair dismissal claim was listed to proceed to a separate remedy hearing to consider compensation issues including the ACAS Code, Polkey, and contributory fault.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claimant was unfairly dismissed on 3 January 2024 and that the complaint of unfair dismissal was successful. Remedy was deferred to a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant in an email sent on 9 April 2025 and confirmed at the final hearing. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ACAS Code of Practice 1: Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures (2015)
- Polkey
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.