Case 3303877/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T How v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3303877/2023
- Decision date
- 4 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick
- Panel members
- Mr L Hoey, Mrs J Hancock
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T How
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the complaints of unauthorised deductions from wages, automatically unfair dismissal and victimisation were dismissed upon withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also found that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and dismissed it.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of automatically unfair dismissal was dismissed upon withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Victimisation | The complaint of victimisation was dismissed upon withdrawal. The judgment does not identify the protected act or protected characteristic for this withdrawn complaint. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was direct disability discrimination and was found not well-founded and dismissed. | 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.