Case 2405090/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ian Winrow v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2405090/2022
- Decision date
- 27 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Ms E Cadbury, Mr D Williamson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ian Winrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal unanimously found that the claimant's complaint under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded, but only in respect of the adjustments identified in the list of issues at points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
The respondent was ordered to pay the claimant the agreed net sum of £20,000, including interest, for loss of overtime and injury to feelings. The judgment does not provide a breakdown between those heads of loss.
The tribunal also recommended that the respondent permit the claimant to use a bicycle for his delivery duties and provide him with a bicycle within 28 days, with the claimant to consult and engage about the bicycle, any modifications, and any adjustments to delivery route 610.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010 for failure to make reasonable adjustments was well founded with respect to adjustments at points 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 only. The award is stated as an agreed net sum of £20,000 including interest for loss of overtime and injury to feelings, without a split between components. | Upheld | Disability | £20,000 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £20,000
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 20 and 21 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.