Case 3315440/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Akram Mr K Juttla v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3315440/2022
- Decision date
- 31 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Akram Mr K Juttla
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had made an order dated 3 October 2023 giving the claimants an opportunity to make written representations on why their claims should not be struck out on the basis that they were not being actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations. Employment Judge Anstis therefore struck out the claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies disability discrimination; the judgment itself states only that the claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category identifies public interest disclosure; the judgment itself states only that the claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination; the judgment itself states only that the claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies sex discrimination; the judgment itself states only that the claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal; the judgment itself states only that the claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.