Case 3311423/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Whelan v Royal Mail Group Limited OPEN PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311423/2020
- Decision date
- 7 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Whelan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 6 October 2022, Employment Judge Britton considered the claimant's strike-out application and a separate request for a penal notice. The underlying complaint was not determined at this hearing; the case was due to proceed to the main hearing listed for 12 October 2022.
On disclosure, the tribunal found that the respondent had not materially failed to comply with earlier case management orders. It accepted the respondent's explanation that the additional material located for incident numbers 8002902619 and 8002981986 added little beyond a timeline and did not show further undisclosed conduct documentation. The judge therefore rejected the claimant's argument that the respondent had withheld relevant documents or disclosed false ones.
The tribunal accordingly refused the strike-out application and dismissed it. The claimant then withdrew the penal notice application, conceding that he had not provided particularisation.
Claims and outcomes
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant applied for the respondent to be struck out from continuing to defend the case, relying on alleged disclosure failures and an allegation that false documents had been disclosed. The tribunal refused the application and dismissed it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claimant's separate application for a 'penal notice' was withdrawn after he accepted that he had not provided the required particularisation. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.