Case 1311317/2020 · Employment Tribunal
MR WITSIMANG MOYO v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1311317/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N. Clarke
- Panel members
- Mrs M. Howard, Mr R. White
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MR WITSIMANG MOYO
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case in person at Birmingham on 7, 8, 9 and 10 August 2023 before Employment Judge N. Clarke, sitting with Mrs M. Howard and Mr R. White. The claimant appeared on his own behalf and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal did not uphold the claims for harassment, direct disability discrimination, indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments, or discrimination arising from disability. The judgment does not set out further reasons in the extracted text.
The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of £1,000, payable at £80 per month, with the first payment due by 25 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the claim for harassment was not upheld. In context with the listed disability discrimination claims, this is treated as disability-related harassment, but the short judgment does not expressly repeat the protected characteristic for harassment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect disability discrimination was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was not upheld. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,000
- across all upheld claims
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.