Case 3315351/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr James Edwards v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3315351/2023
- Decision date
- 6 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freshwater Representation
- Venue
- Huntingdon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr James Edwards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal heard the claims at Huntingdon on 4, 5 and 6 November 2025 before Employment Judge Freshwater. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by a solicitor.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, failure to pay holiday pay, and unauthorised deductions from wages were well-founded and succeeded. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out the factual findings, legal tests, or any remedy amounts.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded and succeeds. Written reasons are not included in the provided text. | Upheld | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment states that the complaint of failure to pay holiday pay is well-founded and succeeds. No remedy amount is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages is well-founded and succeeds. No remedy amount is stated. | Upheld | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.