Case 3311062/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Chanda v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311062/2023
- Decision date
- 28 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Mr A Kapur, Ms H T Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Chanda
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent applied to strike out the claim based on alleged unreasonable conduct of proceedings by the claimant's representative and on the basis that a fair hearing was no longer possible within the listed trial window. The tribunal found several matters amounted to unreasonable conduct, including non-attendance on the first day of hearing without reasonable excuse, late presentation of 499 pages of material, false case citations, a misleading impression about why documents were not in the bundle, and making an amendment application without informing the tribunal of a similar previous refusal.
The tribunal recorded that unreasonable conduct alone was not enough for strike out in the circumstances relied on by the respondent. It considered the remaining hearing time, the proposed cross-examination timetable, and whether evidence could still be completed. The tribunal concluded that a fair hearing remained possible within the allocated listing and refused the respondent's application to strike out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment decided the respondent's application to strike out the claim, not the substantive listed claims. The tribunal refused the strike-out application. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(e) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant [2022] ICR 327
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.