Roger Pilgrim v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2025

Roger Pilgrim brought a claim of unfair dismissal against Royal Mail Group Ltd arising from his retirement on ill-health grounds after long service as an MGV driver from 29 May 1987 to 29 July 2024. He said he had been retired without consultation or agreement and without proper paperwork or details of his lump-sum entitlement. The respondent said the dismissal was on capability grounds following an occupational health assessment, that a capability meeting had been held, alternative roles were considered but were not available, and that it acted reasonably in all the circumstances, relying in the alternative on Polkey.

The final hearing was listed for 9 and 10 September 2025. The claimant did not attend when the case was called and had not provided a witness statement or documents in advance. He later explained by telephone that he was attending a hospital appointment following open-heart surgery and sought a postponement. The tribunal refused that application, noting his failure to comply with earlier orders, including orders to serve a schedule of loss, disclose documents, cooperate on the hearing bundle, and serve a witness statement, and also noting that he had not supported either his earlier or present postponement applications with evidence.

The tribunal held that it was not in the interests of justice to adjourn, having regard to the claimant's persistent non-compliance, the prejudice and inconvenience to the respondent, and the need to deal with cases fairly and promptly. It then struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 38 because the claimant had not complied with tribunal rules or orders and had not actively pursued the claim. The judge added that, even if the matter had not been struck out, the tribunal would in any event have been entitled to dismiss the claim under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing.