Case 2403210/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr F Sims v Edina UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2403210/2020
- Decision date
- 13 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Panel members
- Ms C S Jammeh, Mrs S Moores
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr F Sims
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard Mr F Sims's claims against Edina UK Limited at Manchester in a hybrid CVP hearing before Employment Judge Cookson, with Ms C S Jammeh and Mrs S Moores as the other members of the panel. The written judgment records that the claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination under sections 13, 15 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.
By unanimous judgment dated 9 September 2022, the tribunal held that the claimant's unfair dismissal claim and disability discrimination claims were not upheld and were dismissed. This written record does not set out the tribunal's substantive reasons for those conclusions.
The record also states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing or within 14 days of the sending of the written record. No monetary remedy was awarded in the judgment record provided.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records disability discrimination claims contrary to sections 13, 15 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010; the written record does not separate outcomes for each statutory basis. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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.