Case 2404348/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P A Wilson v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2404348/2023
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson MEMBERS
- Panel members
- Ms A Eyre, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P A Wilson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the claimant's complaint of disability discrimination arising from disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and successful. It also found that the complaint of disability discrimination arising from a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was well founded and successful.
The Tribunal further found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records only the outcomes rather than the detailed reasoning.
No remedy was quantified in this judgment. The case was ordered to be listed for a remedy hearing before the same Tribunal panel to determine losses arising from the successful complaints.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of disability discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010 was found well founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of disability discrimination arising from failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010 was found well founded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was unfairly dismissed contrary to Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- section 15 Equality Act 2010
- sections 20 & 21 Equality Act 2010
- Part X of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.