Case 6000113/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Sam Skubala v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000113/2023
- Decision date
- 15 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Brown
- Venue
- Nottingham
- Panel members
- Ms J Hallam, Mr A Saddique
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Sam Skubala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting at Nottingham before Employment Judge Brown with Ms J Hallam and Mr A Saddique, gave a unanimous judgment on the claimant's complaints against Royal Mail Group LTD.
The written judgment records that the complaints of direct disability discrimination, harassment related to disability, unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability, and unfair dismissal were not well-founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written record does not set out factual findings or remedy awards.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments for disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.