Case 2306582/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Cazacu v Asda Stores Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2306582/2024
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Cazacu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dismissed the claims for discrimination arising from disability and harassment related to disability. The written judgment states that the dismissal was because the Claimant "does meet" the definition of disability for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
Reasons were given orally at the hearing. The written record states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the decision being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment identifies this as discrimination arising from disability and dismisses it. The written text says the claims are dismissed because the Claimant "does meet" the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010, which appears internally unclear; no written reasons are provided. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The judgment identifies this as harassment related to disability and dismisses it. The written text says the claims are dismissed because the Claimant "does meet" the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010, which appears internally unclear; no written reasons are provided. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 of the 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.