Case 1602183/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Rowe v David Wood Baking Limited Heard: by video — 2021
- Case reference
- 1602183/2020
- Decision date
- 9 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins
- Panel members
- Ms S Atkinson, Mrs H Hinkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Rowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that Mr Rowe was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. It rejected his claim of direct disability discrimination under section 13, but upheld his claim that David Wood Baking Limited failed to take such steps as were reasonable to avoid the substantial disadvantage caused by its provisions, criteria or practices, contrary to section 21.
The tribunal also upheld Mr Rowe's unfair dismissal claim under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The judgment records that compensation for the successful claims was to be assessed at a separate hearing unless the parties could agree the figure.
In relation to remedy, the tribunal stated that any compensation for financial losses would be subject to a 50% deduction under Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited because there was a 50% chance that Mr Rowe would have been fairly dismissed in any event. The tribunal said that deduction would not apply to any basic award for unfair dismissal or to any injury to feelings award.
Claims and outcomes
3 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 | Direct disability discrimination under section 13 EqA 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under section 21 EqA 2010. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim under section 94 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.6 EqA 2010
- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.21 EqA 2010
- s.94 ERA 1996
- Polkey v A E Dayton Services Limited
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.