Case 8000237/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Mckinlay v Royal Mail Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 8000237/2024
- Decision date
- 28 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hendry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Mckinlay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant accepted the unfair dismissal claim was out of time. It also found that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim because jurisdiction had been ousted by a validly completed COT3 form in earlier proceedings.
The Tribunal further found that any unfair dismissal claim was in any event res judicata because an earlier claim had been dismissed. It therefore held that the respondent's strike out application was well founded and dismissed the proceedings.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had acted vexatiously and unreasonably in raising multiple unfair dismissal claims. After giving the claimant an opportunity to address his financial position, which he did not do, it made a costs order requiring him to pay the respondent £1,750 as modified expenses of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal granted the respondent's strike out application, finding the unfair dismissal claim was out of time, jurisdiction was ousted by a validly completed COT3 in earlier proceedings, and any unfair dismissal claim was in any event res judicata because an earlier claim had been dismissed. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,750
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- res judicata
- Rule 76(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.