Case 3201250/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Ward v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201250/2023
- Decision date
- 15 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
- Venue
- London East Tribunal via Cloud Video Platform
- Panel members
- Ms S Harwood, Mr M Wood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Ward
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the respondent conceded the claimant was disabled by reason of depression at the material time, but the claimant also maintained that he was disabled by reason of stress. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled by reason of stress within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time.
The reasonable adjustments claim concerned the requirement to work night shifts and the alleged disadvantage that the claimant could not work night shifts because of stress, depression and insomnia. The Tribunal dismissed the claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments.
For harassment related to disability, the claimant relied on allegations about appeal rights following a road traffic accident blameworthiness finding, proposed disciplinary action, overpayment of wages, and not being returned to driving duties. The overpayment allegation was abandoned, and the Tribunal found the remaining allegations failed, including because the claimant had been allowed an appeal and because the matters relied on were not shown to be related to depression.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments claim. The Tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of depression but not by reason of stress at the material time, and dismissed the reasonable adjustments claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Harassment related to disability claim. One pleaded allegation concerning overpayment of wages was abandoned during cross-examination and no findings were made about it; the remaining allegations were dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- EHRC Employment Code
- Elliott v Dorset County Council
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Wigginton v Cowie
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
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.