Cases1304647/2023

Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited

6 November 2025Before Employment Judge MaxwellBirminghamin person

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Unfair Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it, indicating the dismissal was fair and/or the tribunal accepted the respondent's justification for the dismissal.

Wrongful Dismissalfailed

The tribunal found the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it, meaning the tribunal found the employer had not breached the contract of employment in dismissing the claimant.

Direct Discrimination(race)partly succeeded

The tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to determine allegations relating to events in 2019 and before due to time limits. The allegations relating to events in 2022 and thereafter were determined on their merits but were found not to be well-founded and dismissed.

Facts

Mr Singh brought claims against Royal Mail Group Ltd including unfair dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and direct race discrimination. Some of the race discrimination allegations related to events in 2019 and before, while others related to events in 2022 and thereafter. The case proceeded to a six-day full merits hearing before an employment tribunal panel.

Decision

The tribunal dismissed all claims. The unfair and wrongful dismissal claims failed on their merits. For the race discrimination claim, the tribunal found it had no jurisdiction over events in 2019 and before due to time limits, and the allegations relating to 2022 and thereafter were dismissed as not well-founded.

Practical note

A self-represented claimant in a discrimination case must ensure all allegations are brought within the statutory time limits, as the tribunal may lack jurisdiction to hear out-of-time complaints even where later allegations proceed.

Case details

Case number
1304647/2023
Decision date
6 November 2025
Hearing type
full merits
Hearing days
6
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Claimant representation

Represented
No