Case 3300466/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Byatt v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300466/2024
- Decision date
- 4 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
- Panel members
- Mrs J. Buck, Mrs C. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Byatt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Cambridge before Employment Judge Hutchings with tribunal members Mrs J. Buck and Mrs C. Smith, heard the case on 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14 October 2025, with deliberation days on 9, 15 and 16 October 2025 and an oral judgment on 17 October 2025. The claimant was Mr A. Byatt, appearing in person, and the respondent was Royal Mail Group Limited, represented by Mr Chaudhry, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed both complaints. It held that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded, and it also held that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded. No monetary remedy was recorded in the written judgment. The record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability; dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.