Case 1804075/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Burcica v Chicken Cabins Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1804075/2024
- Decision date
- 13 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Ms W Harrison, Mr K Lannaman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Burcica
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe unanimous tribunal, sitting in Leeds before Employment Judge Wade with Ms W Harrison and Mr K Lannaman, upheld both of Mr D Burcica’s disability discrimination complaints against Chicken Cabins Ltd. The judgment records that the claimant’s complaint of a failure to make reasonable adjustment succeeded, and that his complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in connection with disability also succeeded.
On remedy, the tribunal awarded £15,000 for injury to feelings, expressly stating that this sum was not in connection with termination of employment. It also awarded £1,200 interest, making a total payable by the respondent of £16,200.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustment succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of unfavourable treatment because of something arising in connection with disability succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £16,200
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.