Case 6008555/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Jackson v Royal Mail Group Limited AT A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008555/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Jackson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing at Leeds by CVP on 4 February 2025 before Employment Judge Lancaster. The claimant was Miss N Jackson and the respondent was Royal Mail Group Limited. The tribunal dealt with a limitation issue only; it did not determine the substantive merits of the pleaded complaints.
The tribunal found that all complaints had been presented out of time. It held that it was either reasonably practicable for the complaints to have been presented within the three-month period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or that it was not just and equitable to extend time. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claims were time-barred.
Because the complaints were out of time, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear them and dismissed the claim. The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | All complaints were presented out of time; the tribunal held it was either reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | All complaints were presented out of time; the tribunal held it was either reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | All complaints were presented out of time; the tribunal held it was either reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | All complaints were presented out of time; the tribunal held it was either reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | All complaints were presented out of time; the tribunal held it was either reasonably practicable to present them within the limitation period as extended by ACAS early conciliation, or it was not just and equitable to extend time. The tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the claim. |
Legal tests applied
3 references- reasonably practicable
- just and equitable extension of time
- ACAS early conciliation
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.