Case 3318912/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Cooper v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3318912/2019
- Decision date
- 23 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Cooper
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 23 October 2020, the claim had been struck out under rule 37(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. Later that day, the claimant contacted the Tribunal to say he had not been contacted to participate in the hearing.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's union representative had emailed updated telephone numbers to the Tribunal offices early that morning, but the email had not been seen before the preliminary hearing. A second preliminary hearing was convened, at which it became apparent that the claimant wished to pursue the case and was not satisfied by the respondent's withdrawal of the stage 1 warning that was the subject of the claim.
The Tribunal concluded that it was necessary in the interests of justice to revoke the judgment striking out the claim. No substantive liability or remedy issue was determined in this reconsideration judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | The judgment did not determine the substantive claim. It reconsidered and revoked an earlier same-day strike-out judgment under rule 37(d), so the claim was to continue. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- interests of justice
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.