Case 3201654/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Vaid v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3201654/2023
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge P Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Vaid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was employed by the respondent as an Operational Postal Grade from 1 February 2018 and remained employed. He presented a claim which appeared to include unauthorised deductions from wages and personal injury, but the tribunal recorded that the claim form gave too little detail to understand the nature and legal basis of the complaints.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 18 March 2024, did not answer a call from the clerk, and did not respond to an email warning that the hearing could proceed in his absence and that his claim was likely to be dismissed. The judge considered alternatives including re-listing, case management orders, an unless order and a strike out warning, but decided these would not be appropriate given the claimant's non-attendance and lack of engagement.
The tribunal was satisfied that reasonable attempts had been made to get the claimant to attend and that he had been warned of the likely consequences. It dismissed the claim for non-attendance under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant ticked boxes for holiday pay, arrears of pay and other payments, and sought GBP 38,428 in unpaid income. The tribunal said the claim appeared to include unauthorised deductions from wages, but the details and legal basis were unclear. The claim was dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant ticked the holiday pay box, but the tribunal recorded that the nature and legal basis of the complaints were impossible to understand because of the paucity of details. The claim was dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant described an additional claim as injury/compensation and sought GBP 110,000 for alleged personal injuries. The tribunal noted that part of the claim appeared to be for personal injury, which it did not have jurisdiction to consider. The claim was dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objective
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.