Royal Mail Group Plc v Jan

Royal Mail Group Plc v Jan

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the facts did not pass Igen stage 1 and that there was no evidence of victimisation by Mr Pybus. Even if the burden had shifted, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that there was no victimisation. The claims against Mr Calouri were not part of a continuing act and were out of time. The issues raised were either without merit or academic due to the outcome of the remitted hearing.

Parties
Appellant: Royal Mail Group PLC; Respondent: Jan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Religious Discrimination, Disability Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Continuing Act Doctrine, Limitation of Actions
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Religious Discrimination Disability Discrimination Burden of Proof Continuing Act Doctrine +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mail Group PLC

Appellant

Jan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal erred in dismissing the victimisation claim against Mr Pybus
  2. 2 Whether the scope of remission to the Employment Tribunal should have included allegations against Mr Turvey and Mr Pybus as part of a continuing act

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the facts did not pass Igen stage 1 and that there was no evidence of victimisation by Mr Pybus. Even if the burden had shifted, the tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that there was no victimisation. The claims against Mr Calouri were not part of a continuing act and were out of time. The issues raised were either without merit or academic due to the outcome of the remitted hearing.

Court Disposition

application refused