Case 6007911/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. C Holroyd v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007911/2024
- Decision date
- 13 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. C Holroyd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Cardiff hearing on 24 and 25 September 2025, before Employment Judge Cawthray, the claimant appeared in person and the respondent was represented by a solicitor. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing; the published judgment records the outcomes but does not set out separate written reasons.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal complaint and stated that the claimant was fairly dismissed. It also dismissed the direct disability discrimination complaint and the complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, each described as not well-founded. The complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was also dismissed as not well-founded. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability; found not well-founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages was found not well-founded and 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.