Case 2305964/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael Olatunde Morohunmubo v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305964/2024
- Decision date
- 17 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Atkins
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael Olatunde Morohunmubo
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed Mr Michael Olatunde Morohunmubo's breach-of-contract complaint concerning notice pay and his holiday-pay complaint, finding that neither was well-founded.
The unfair-dismissal complaint was upheld. The Tribunal found a 50% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event. It also found that Ocado Central Services Ltd unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and considered it just and equitable to increase the compensatory award by 10% under section 207A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The Tribunal awarded £2,047.20 as a basic award and £2,076.98 as a compensatory award, totalling £4,124.18. The judgment states that these are the sums payable after applicable deductions and uplifts.
The Tribunal dismissed the disability-discrimination complaints of direct discrimination under section 13, discrimination arising from disability under section 15, indirect discrimination under section 19, and failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, finding each complaint not well-founded.
The harassment complaint under section 26 and the victimisation complaint under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010 were also dismissed as not well-founded. The written judgment records the outcomes and remedy but does not set out the underlying factual reasoning; it states that reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Complaint concerning notice pay. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The award comprises a basic award of £2,047.20 and a compensatory award of £2,076.98, after applicable deductions and uplifts. | Upheld | — | £4,124 |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Indirect discrimination contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £4,124
- across all upheld claims
- Basic award
- £2,047
- statutory, unfair dismissal
- Compensatory award
- £2,077
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
9 references- 50% chance of fair dismissal in any event
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015
- s.207A Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.19 Equality Act 2010
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s.26 Equality Act 2010
- s.27 Equality Act 2010
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.