Case 2414461/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Dixon v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2414461/2021
- Decision date
- 17 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Dixon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant had materially complied with an Unless Order dated 23 June 2022 and, if not, whether the claim should stand dismissed or relief from sanction should be granted. The tribunal also recorded that the parties agreed the claimant was not bringing an equal pay claim.
The tribunal found that, after the Unless Order, the claimant emailed the respondent on 1 July 2022 with a statement of loss, witness statement and attachment, including information about comparators and remedy. The respondent's solicitors later indicated that the case was ready for trial, and both parties accepted at the hearing that the claimant had complied with the Unless Order.
The tribunal concluded that it was in the interests of justice to grant relief against sanction because a fair trial remained possible. The unfair dismissal claim was listed to proceed to a final hearing before a judge sitting alone.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The substantive unfair dismissal complaint was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal granted relief against sanction and directed that the unfair dismissal claim proceed to a final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
- fair trial remains possible
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.