Case 2500189/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Baty v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500189/2024
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Baty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints in case number 2500189/2024. By letter dated 27 September 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints should not be struck out because he had failed to actively pursue the claim and failed to comply with paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10 of the orders made by Employment Judge Loy on 14 June 2024.
The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination complaints in case number 2500189/2024 under rule 37.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining unfair dismissal claim in case number 2502619/2023 would proceed to final hearing. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The Equality Act 2010 disability discrimination complaints were struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to actively pursue the claim and failed to comply with paragraphs 1, 8, 9 and 10 of the orders made by Employment Judge Loy on 14 June 2024. The Tribunal issued a letter dated 27 September 2024 giving an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing, but none were received. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.