Case 6017966/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Gary Hodges v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6017966/2024
- Decision date
- 5 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Da Costa
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Gary Hodges
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages. The alleged deduction related to a payment made on 15 September 2023, and the claim was presented on 8 November 2024.
The Tribunal considered the time limit under section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It heard from both parties on whether it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to present the claim within three months, and if not, whether it was presented within a reasonable further period.
The Tribunal found that it was reasonably practicable for the claimant to have presented the complaint within three months of 15 September 2023. It also found, in the alternative, that even if it was reasonable to wait until internal appeal avenues were exhausted, the complaint was still not presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The complaint was dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal found it was reasonably practicable to present it within the statutory three-month time limit, and alternatively that it was not presented within a reasonable further period after internal appeal avenues were exhausted. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 23(1) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(2) Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 23(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- reasonably practicable
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.