Case 6008179/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Pike v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008179/2025
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Pike
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 21 October 2025 before Employment Judge Edmonds in Birmingham, the tribunal dealt only with withdrawal issues. It recorded that the claimant's complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages, relating to arrears of pay and other payments, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant in respect of both case numbers 6008179/2025 and 6008180/2025.
The judgment separately stated that 6008180/2025 had been withdrawn by the claimant in its entirety and that no judgment dismissing that claim was issued, because the tribunal considered that would not be in the interests of justice. The written record therefore ended that claim without a merits decision.
The tribunal stated that the remainder of the claimant's complaints were unaffected and remained listed for hearing from 2 to 6 November 2026. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal recorded that the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages relating to arrears of pay / other payments was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant in respect of both 6008179/2025 and 6008180/2025. It also recorded that 6008180/2025 had been withdrawn in its entirety and that no separate dismissal judgment was issued for that claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.