Case 3302752/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Faizan Ghanni v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302752/2025
- Decision date
- 17 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation
Parties
2 namedMr Faizan Ghanni
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Faizan Ghanni brought a claim against Royal Mail Group Limited identified in his claim form as a whistleblowing complaint, including dismissal or other unfair treatment after whistleblowing. The matter was heard at Reading by video on 17 December 2025 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto. The claimant appeared in person; the respondent was represented by Mr G Edwards, solicitor.
The claimant's underlying complaint concerned an assault by a colleague (Mr F) on 23 April 2024. He said the initial investigating manager had decided in Mr F's favour, that an appeal manager later decided in the claimant's favour, and that he had not been compensated for missed work and overtime resulting from a psychological illness following the incident. The claimant alleged the respondent was vicariously liable for the assault and had failed to provide a safe workplace.
The Tribunal struck out the claim. On the whistleblowing complaint, applying ss.43B and 47B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, the Tribunal held the claimant did not complain that the alleged detriments (failure to provide a safe workplace and the handling of his complaint) were because of his disclosure, so the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal characterised the claimant's complaint as in substance a breach of contract or breach of duty claim, but a serving employee cannot bring a breach of contract claim in the Employment Tribunal because such a claim only arises in the Tribunal's jurisdiction where it is outstanding on termination. No other complaint within the Tribunal's jurisdiction was identified.
Claims and outcomes
2 claims adjudicated| Claim type | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 referencesSource document
Primary recordThe full judgment is available 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.