Case 3302961/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P. Baptiste v Royal Mail Group Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN PUBLIC — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302961/2024
- Decision date
- 10 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McNeill KC
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P. Baptiste
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Reading on 7 August 2025, Employment Judge McNeill KC, sitting alone, struck out the claimant's constructive unfair dismissal claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge held that claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The respondent's application to strike out the case for unreasonable conduct was refused. The judge accepted there had been unreasonable conduct, including irrelevant and sometimes very personal comments in documents sent to individual employees in what purported to be witness summonses, but did not exercise the discretion to strike the claim out on that basis.
The order permitted the claimant's remaining claims to proceed to a full hearing. Those claims were unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, direct race, sex and age discrimination, victimisation, holiday pay, notice pay, and breach of contract limited to unpaid contractual overtime between 13 January and 16 March 2023 and 23 October and 22 December 2023. The discrimination allegations were grouped around the alleged assault by Richard Ashwood on 13 December 2022 and the respondent's handling of it, suspension, disciplinary meetings on 2 and 8 November 2023 and 20 December 2023 held in the claimant's absence, a change to duty paperwork in June 2023, complaints against Ms Sinclair in January 2023, Lise Brewster's referral of those complaints back to Ms Sinclair, and dismissal.
The victimisation claim was said to arise from the claimant's complaint that Ms Sinclair discriminated against him in Employment Tribunal case no. 3311695/2022, with the detriments being the same matters relied on for the direct discrimination claims. This was a procedural record only, so the tribunal did not decide liability or award compensation on the claims that were allowed to continue. The record was approved on 7 August 2025 and sent to the parties on 10 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
10 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Permitted to proceed to a full hearing; no merits finding was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Permitted to proceed to a full hearing; no merits finding was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Permitted to proceed to a full hearing; no merits finding was made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Part of the grouped direct race, sex and age discrimination allegations listed in paragraph 3(iii); permitted to proceed to a full hearing, with no merits finding made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | Part of the grouped direct race, sex and age discrimination allegations listed in paragraph 3(iii); permitted to proceed to a full hearing, with no merits finding made at this preliminary hearing. | Other | Sex | — |
| Age discrimination | Part of the grouped direct race, sex and age discrimination allegations listed in paragraph 3(iii); permitted to proceed to a full hearing, with no merits finding made at this preliminary hearing. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.