Royal Mail Group Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's application for reconsideration of a judgment sent on 18 March 2026 was refused. The tribunal found that the claimant failed to properly set out what protected act he relied upon and what detriment he suffered, making the same error in the original ET1. The tribunal noted the claimant also breached Rule 90 by failing to serve the respondent with the reconsideration application.

The claimant's reconsideration application failed to specify the protected act and detriment, repeating the same pleading deficiency from the original claim. There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked.

• •whether claimant properly pleaded a protected act and detriment claim
• •procedural deficiency in application for reconsideration
• •failure to comply with Rule 90 in serving the respondent

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Omar Khan Respondent: Royal Mail Group Ltd JUDGMENT The claimant’s application dated 30 March 2026 for reconsideration of the judgment sent to the parties on 18 March 2026 is refused. REASONS There is no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked, because: The Claimant's application of 30 March 2026 was labelled reconsideration but, within in it, he failed to set out what was the protected act and what detriment he suffered. It is not sufficient to simply attach a grievance - it is for the Claimant to set out exactly what he argues is the protected act, not for the Tribunal to guess. The Claimant made the same error in the ET1. I have considered whether I could treat the reconsideration as an amendment application, but the Claimant is still required to set out the claim he seeks to add, which he has not. It remains open to the Claimant to make an amendment application, setting out properly the claim he seeks to bring and to explain why it would be in the interests of justice to allow the amendment, but that is a matter for him. If the Claimant does intend to do so, he should ensure he makes the application as soon as possible and in good time before the next hearing. I also note that the Claimant failed to copy in the Respondent into his application; it is not permitted under Rule 90 to fail to do so and ask the Tribunal to assist Date: 7 May 2026 Approved by Employment Judge C Sharp JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ..........14 May 2026.................................... ...................................................................... FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE