Case 2307895/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A. Cooke v London Fire Commissioner — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307895/2020
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
- Panel members
- Ms K. Beckett, Mr K. Murphy
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A. Cooke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the case at London South by CVP from 4 to 8 July 2022 before Employment Judge T.R. Smith, Ms K. Beckett and Mr K. Murphy. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the claimant's complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction of wages were not well founded and were dismissed. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment does not set out further factual findings or legal reasoning.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the unfair dismissal complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the unlawful deduction of wages complaint was not well founded and was dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.