Case 3207350/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Smith v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3207350/2021
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Members
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
- Panel members
- Mr M Rowe, Mrs M Legg
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal found that the Claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal under Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded. It ordered that any award for unfair dismissal should be subject to a 25% deduction for contributory conduct under Sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The Tribunal also found that the Claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to his dismissal. The complaints of direct race discrimination and harassment were not determined on their merits because the Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction: they were presented outside the three-month time limit and it would not be just and equitable to extend time.
The judgment states that the remainder of the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed. Remedy was reserved for a two-day remedy hearing, which would not determine the issue of pension.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal complaint under Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996 succeeded, subject to a 25% deduction for contributory conduct under Sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of discrimination arising from disability under Section 15 Equality Act 2010 succeeded in relation to dismissal. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the direct race discrimination complaint because it was not presented within three months of the last complaint and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the harassment complaint because it was not presented within three months of the last complaint and it would not be just and equitable to extend time. The text groups this with the direct race discrimination complaint, so race is inferred as the related protected characteristic. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Other | The judgment states that the remainder of the Claimant's complaints were not well founded and were dismissed, but the extracted judgment does not identify those complaints. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Sections 122(2) and 123(6) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Section 15 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable to extend the time limit
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.