Case 2307098/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Murphy v Royal Borough of Greenwich — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307098/2023
- Decision date
- 5 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
- Panel members
- Ms C Lloyd-Jennings, Ms C Edwards
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the complaints of discrimination arising from disability, indirect disability discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments all succeeded. It also recorded that the complaints of direct disability discrimination and unauthorised deduction from wages failed and were dismissed.
The Tribunal stated that it had jurisdiction in principle to consider applying an uplift to compensation for failure to comply with the relevant ACAS Code of Practice, with the question of whether to apply an uplift left to the remedy hearing. It also stated that no reduction would be made to compensation to reflect the possibility that the claimant's employment might have ended in any event up to and including the date of the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
5 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 | Complaint of discrimination arising from disability succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of indirect disability discrimination succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments succeeded. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Complaint of direct disability discrimination failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as unauthorised deduction from wages; it failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- relevant ACAS Code of Practice
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.