Case 1601518/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Cotgreave v Food Standards Agency — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601518/2022
- Decision date
- 22 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Evans
- Panel members
- Mrs F Crane, Mr A Greenland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Cotgreave
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting with Employment Judge S Evans, Mrs F Crane and Mr A Greenland, unanimously held that Mr L Cotgreave had been treated unfavourably for a reason arising in consequence of his disability. That disability discrimination claim succeeded.
The tribunal separately found that the claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and dismissed it. The written record notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing, so no fuller written reasons were issued unless requested by a party within 14 days.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £7,000 for injury to feelings and interest on the award. Interest was calculated at 8% for the period from 12 August 2022 to 18 August 2023, producing £570.73. The total monetary award recorded in the judgment was therefore £7,570.73.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was treated unfavourably for a reason arising in consequence of his disability. | Upheld | Disability | £7,000 |
| Disability discrimination | The separate claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £7,571
- 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.