Case 1403442/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Lund v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1403442/2023
- Decision date
- 20 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gray
- Venue
- Southampton
- Panel members
- Mrs Killick, Mr Richardson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Lund
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at Southampton on 2, 3, 4 and 5 September 2024 before Employment Judge Gray, sitting with Mrs Killick and Mr Richardson. The claimant, Mrs K Lund, appeared in person and the respondent, Ocado Central Services Limited, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that both of the claimant's complaints failed and were dismissed. Those complaints were unfair dismissal and disability discrimination, the discrimination claim being framed as a failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the tribunal's standard practice. No remedy was awarded because no claim succeeded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The pleaded disability complaint was a failure in the duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.