Case 2404474/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr S Jafrate v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024

Case reference: 2404474/2023
Decision date: 26 January 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Horne Representatives

Indexed: 18 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr S Jafrate

Respondent

Royal Mail Group Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a judgment at a preliminary hearing dealing with jurisdiction and time limits. The tribunal held that it had jurisdiction to consider the complaints of unfair dismissal and holiday pay. Although the claim had been presented after the statutory time limit, the tribunal found that it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to present it within time and that it was presented within such further period as the tribunal considered reasonable.

The tribunal also held that it had jurisdiction to consider the complaint of victimisation. Although that complaint was presented after the statutory time limit, the tribunal found that it was presented within such other period as it considered just and equitable.

The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the complaints and did not make any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to consider the unfair dismissal complaint despite the claim being presented after the statutory time limit. The substantive merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Holiday pay	At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to consider the holiday pay claim despite the claim being presented after the statutory time limit. The substantive merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—
Victimisation	At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided it had jurisdiction to consider the victimisation complaint despite the claim being presented after the statutory time limit. The substantive merits were not determined in this judgment.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.