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 namedClaimant
Mr Faizan Ghanni
Respondent
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 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Whistleblowing claim struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held that the claimant did not complain that the reason for the alleged detriments was because he made the disclosure (his complaint to his employer about being assaulted by a colleague). Section 47B Employment Rights Act 1996 requires the detriment to be on the ground of the protected disclosure. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract complaint could not proceed in the Employment Tribunal because the claimant remained in employment with the respondent; under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction Order, an employee can only bring a contract claim in the Tribunal where the claim arises or is outstanding on the termination of employment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.43B Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.47B Employment Rights Act 1996
- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.