Case 4106854/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 4106854/2024 Mr D Philip v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 4106854/2024
- Decision date
- 26 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge I McFatridge Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 4106854/2024 Mr D Philip
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 38(1)(d).
The reasons recorded were that the Claimant had been ordered in a Preliminary Hearing Note issued on 20 January 2025 to provide information by specified dates and had not complied. Further reminders were sent on 17 February 2025 and 26 February 2025, but no reply was received.
A strike out warning letter was sent on 7 March 2025 requiring a response by 21 March 2025 if the Claimant wished to reply or request a hearing. The Claimant did not respond, give reasons why strike out should not occur, or request a hearing, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim for not being actively pursued. The judgment text does not separately describe the unfair dismissal allegation; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim for not being actively pursued. The judgment text does not separately describe the disability discrimination allegation; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.