Case 4103357/2022 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103357/2022 Mr G Mckinlay v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 4103357/2022
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Jones Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4103357/2022 Mr G Mckinlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant lodged the claim form on 21 June 2022. On 28 July 2022, the Tribunal asked the claimant to explain why the claim had not been raised within three months of the apparent termination of employment, which appeared to have occurred in 2018. The claimant did not provide reasons for lodging the claim in June 2022.
On 12 August 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 18 August 2022 or to request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason or request a hearing, and the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' but does not specify the cause or causes of action in the judgment text. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Disability Discrimination and Unfair Dismissal, but the judgment itself does not identify distinct claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.