Case 2407434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Hamilton v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2407434/2024
- Decision date
- 16 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Thompson
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal upheld Ms S Hamilton's claim that Royal Mail Group Limited subjected her to a detriment for making a protected disclosure. It ordered the respondent to pay the agreed sum of £6,978.20 as compensation for that claim. The judgment records no breakdown of the compensation.
The tribunal dismissed the claims for discrimination arising from disability and constructive unfair dismissal as not well-founded. Employment Judge Thompson sat alone at Manchester on 14, 15 and 16 July 2026. Reasons were given orally; the written judgment records the outcomes without setting out the underlying facts or reasoning.
The interest notice specifies 27 August 2026 as the relevant decision day, 28 August 2026 as the calculation day and a rate of 8% per annum. It states that no interest is payable if the award is paid in full within 14 days after the written decision was sent. No quantified interest award is recorded. The £1,000 figure in the procedural notice concerns a possible fine for failure to comply with an order, rather than compensation awarded in this case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The protected disclosure detriment claim succeeded. Compensation was agreed at £6,978.20; no breakdown was recorded. | Upheld | — | £6,978 |
| Disability discrimination | The claim for discrimination arising from disability was dismissed. Reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The claim for constructive unfair dismissal was dismissed. Reasons were given orally. | Dismissed | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £6,978
- across all upheld claims
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.