Case 3305678/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Thapa (Claimant’s wife) For the v Mr Burgess (Paralegal) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305678/2022
- Decision date
- 21 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Wood
- Panel members
- Mrs A Brown, Mrs C Whitehouse
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Thapa (Claimant’s wife) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting by CVP before Employment Judge R Wood with Mrs A Brown and Mrs C Whitehouse, heard Mr G Gurung's claims against Royal Mail Group Ltd on 17-21 June 2024. It found that he was not the subject of direct discrimination based on sex and that he was not harassed relating to sex by the respondent's employees.
The tribunal did find that the respondent had made unauthorised deductions from the claimant's wages. It held Royal Mail Group Ltd liable to pay £17,715.78, stated to be gross of any tax liability, and recorded that the net sum had already been paid to the claimant. No separate injury to feelings, interest, or other remedy is recorded in the extracted judgment text.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held the respondent liable to pay £17,715.78 gross of any tax liability and recorded that the net sum had already been paid to the claimant. | Upheld | — | £17,716 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £17,716
- across all upheld claims
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.