Case 3304166/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Samuel Respondent 1: Royal Mail Group Limited Respondent 2: Ricki Pike Respondent 3: Matina Calvert Respondent 4: Ian Sharrock Respondent 5: James Watts Respondent 6: Adam Clowes Respondent 7: Andrew Catlett v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304166/2018
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
- Venue
- Bury St Edmunds
- Panel members
- Mr G Edmondson, Mr D Hart
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mrs R Samuel Respondent 1: Royal Mail Group Limited Respondent 2: Ricki Pike Respondent 3: Matina Calvert Respondent 4: Ian Sharrock Respondent 5: James Watts Respondent 6: Adam Clowes Respondent 7: Andrew Catlett
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal's written judgment records that all substantive complaints were dismissed. Specifically, the complaints of direct race discrimination, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, victimisation, detriment for having made a protected disclosure, and breach of the Working Time Regulations all failed.
The judgment also records a finding that the claimant had behaved unreasonably in the conduct of the litigation. Despite that finding, the tribunal declined to make an award of costs against her.
No written reasons are included in this document. The note states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested in accordance with the tribunal's procedure.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct race discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct disability discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment records that the complaint of victimisation failed and was dismissed. The protected characteristic is not specified in this judgment record. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the complaint of detriment for having made a protected disclosure failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations |
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.