Case 2408623/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Mulla v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2408623/2022
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Mulla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 24 April 2025, Employment Judge Slater considered whether Mr F Mulla's race discrimination and disability discrimination complaints, arising from unsuccessful applications for promotion at Royal Mail Group Ltd, should be struck out on limitation grounds. The tribunal recorded that the race complaints concerned applications made between 7 May 2015 and 12 June 2019, and the disability complaints concerned applications made between 7 May 2015 and 6 July 2021. Because the exact refusal dates were not available, the tribunal assumed the last relevant acts were 12 July 2019 for race and 6 August 2021 for disability, taking the refusals to be about a month after the applications.
Applying section 123 of the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal found that all of the discrimination complaints were presented outside the normal three-month time limit and that ACAS early conciliation did not extend time because it was started after the primary limitation periods had expired. The issue was therefore whether there was any reasonable prospect of showing that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal accepted that the respondent had a document retention policy under which most records relating to unsuccessful candidates would have been destroyed, and that the people involved in shortlisting and interviewing were unlikely to have any specific recollection after so much time.
The tribunal noted that Mr Mulla brought a grievance in summer 2019 referring to disability discrimination, but not race discrimination, and that his later grievance in 2022 was dismissed, with the appeal outcome dated 15 November 2022 also dismissing his complaints. For the race complaints, the tribunal accepted Mr Mulla's evidence that he only began to think about race discrimination after a managerial restructure in 2022, but held that this late realisation did not give any realistic prospect of a just and equitable extension. For the disability complaints, the tribunal found that he was already considering possible disability discrimination by summer 2019, yet did not present his tribunal claim until 28 October 2022, and that following internal grievance procedures or line managers' advice to keep developing himself did not justify the delay. The tribunal therefore struck out both discrimination complaints. Mr Mulla withdrew his unauthorised deduction from wages complaint after saying the amount claimed had been paid, and the tribunal recorded that complaint as dismissed on withdrawal, bringing the proceedings to an end.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Direct race discrimination complaints relating to unsuccessful promotion applications were struck out at a preliminary hearing because they were presented out of time and the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of a just and equitable extension. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising in consequence of disability complaints relating to unsuccessful promotion applications were struck out at a preliminary hearing because they were presented out of time and the tribunal found no reasonable prospect of a just and equitable extension. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant said the amount claimed had been paid before the hearing; the tribunal recorded the complaint as dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- s.123(3) Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable extension of time
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.