Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim struck out under Rule 47(1) for claimant's non-attendance at preliminary hearing and persistent failure to comply with case management orders. Claimant failed to particularise allegations, provide medical evidence, or attend hearing despite nine months' notice and clear warnings.
Claim struck out under Rule 47(1) for claimant's non-attendance at preliminary hearing and persistent failure to comply with case management orders. Claimant failed to identify the protected act or detriment, making the claim impossible to respond to.
Claim struck out under Rule 47(1) for claimant's non-attendance at preliminary hearing and persistent failure to comply with case management orders. Claimant failed to identify the fundamental breach of contract relied upon, leaving the claim entirely unparticularised.
Claim struck out under Rule 47(1) for claimant's non-attendance at preliminary hearing and persistent failure to comply with case management orders. Claimant failed to identify what reasonable adjustments were requested or should have been made, and failed to provide medical evidence of disability.
Facts
Claimant, a postman employed by Royal Mail, brought claims of disability discrimination, victimisation, and constructive unfair dismissal relating to events between July 2023 and November 2024. The ET1 claim form was initially rejected as Section 8.2 was completely blank. Re-submitted claim was accepted but remained substantially blank with no proper particulars. Claimant was ordered on 4 March 2025 to provide medical evidence, schedule of loss, and clarification of allegations by 22 April 2025. Claimant failed to comply with any orders over seven months. Claimant failed to attend preliminary hearing on 2 December 2025 despite nine months' notice, claiming he had to work.
Decision
Tribunal dismissed all claims under Rule 47(1) for non-attendance. Judge found claimant's non-attendance was deliberate choice without acceptable reason, occurring in context of persistent failure to engage with tribunal processes. Claims were in form that could not sensibly be responded to, with no particulars provided despite clear orders and warnings. No realistic prospect of claimant complying with further orders. Dismissal was proportionate response consistent with overriding objective.
Practical note
A claim will be dismissed under Rule 47(1) where a claimant persistently fails to comply with case management orders over many months, files a claim with no proper particulars that cannot sensibly be responded to, and fails to attend a preliminary hearing without good reason despite clear warnings.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004085/2024
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Postman
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No