Case 6003229/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Joseph v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003229/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T Perry Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Joseph
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at London South Employment Tribunal on 11 and 12 March 2026 before Employment Judge T Perry. The claimant represented herself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The written judgment records that the claimant's claims for direct discrimination and harassment were not well founded and were dismissed. The judgment does not set out written reasons because summary reasons were given orally at the hearing, with written reasons available only if requested under the stated procedure.
The claimant's claim in respect of deduction from wages and/or discrimination as it related to overtime was dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the written judgment.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written judgment states that claims for direct discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristics are taken from the listing categories; the judgment text itself does not separately identify which characteristics attached to each direct discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The written judgment states that claims for direct discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristics are taken from the listing categories; the judgment text itself does not separately identify which characteristics attached to each direct discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment states that claims for direct discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristics are taken from the listing categories; the judgment text itself does not separately identify which characteristics attached to each direct discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The written judgment states that claims for direct discrimination and harassment were not well founded and dismissed. The protected characteristics are taken from the listing categories; the judgment text itself does not separately identify which characteristics attached to each direct discrimination allegation. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Sex discrimination |
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.