Case 6000752/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Iles v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000752/2024
- Decision date
- 16 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A.M.S. Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Iles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Iles brought claims of direct disability discrimination and discrimination arising from disability against Royal Mail Group Limited. The tribunal recorded that both claims had not been presented within the applicable time limit, but it decided that it was just and equitable to extend time so that the claims could proceed.
After considering the merits, the tribunal found that the direct disability discrimination complaint was not well-founded and dismissed it. It also found that the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability was not well-founded and dismissed it. No monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination. The tribunal held this claim was presented out of time but it was just and equitable to extend time; it was then found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal held this claim was presented out of time but it was just and equitable to extend time; it was then found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.