Claimant v Royal Mail Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Claim originally brought under s.14 Equality Act 2010 (combined discrimination) which is not in force. Application to amend to s.13 direct discrimination was refused because: the facts pleaded could not establish detriment; no evidential basis to suggest decision maker was influenced by race; significant time limit issues with treatment occurring in late 2023 but claim not filed until May 2025; and balance of prejudice favoured respondent given weakness of claim.
Claim originally brought under s.14 Equality Act 2010 (combined discrimination) which is not in force. Application to amend to s.13 direct discrimination was refused on same basis as race claim: no clear detriment established; no evidence decision maker influenced by disability; significant delay in bringing claim; and claimant failed to explain how evidential difficulties would be overcome.
Application to amend to add s.19 indirect discrimination claim was refused due to timing and manner of application. The allegations could not be understood and had no prospects of success. No prejudice to claimant in refusing the amendment.
Application to amend to add s.20 reasonable adjustments claim was refused due to timing and manner of application. The allegations could not be understood and had no prospects of success. No prejudice to claimant in refusing the amendment.
Facts
In November/December 2023, the claimant was removed from working in the priority locker after making a mail-sorting mistake costing £1000, dealt with informally by Mr West with no formal conduct procedure or coaching. In February 2025, the claimant learned that a colleague Ms Thompson made a similar mistake costing £250 but was not removed or dealt with informally. The claimant raised the inconsistency with HR and brought tribunal proceedings in May 2025.
Decision
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend her claim from s.14 (combined discrimination, not in force) to s.13 direct discrimination, s.19 indirect discrimination and s.20 reasonable adjustments. The judge found the facts could not establish detriment, there was no evidential basis for discrimination, significant time limit problems existed, and the balance of prejudice favoured the respondent. The claim will be struck out unless the claimant provides representations by 15 August 2025.
Practical note
Claims based on s.14 Equality Act 2010 (combined discrimination) have no reasonable prospects as this provision is not yet in force, and applications to re-label as alternative discrimination claims will be refused where the underlying facts cannot establish a prima facie case and significant time has elapsed.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1803822/2025
- Decision date
- 17 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- logistics
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- union
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- lay rep