Case 2408568/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Hamilton v Wm Morrison Supermarkets Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408568/2021
- Decision date
- 21 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Dr H Vahramian, Mr J Ostrowski
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought Equality Act 2010 claims for direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, disability-related harassment, failure to make reasonable adjustments, direct race discrimination, race-related harassment, and victimisation. The tribunal held that the Equality Act claims were not well-founded and dismissed them.
The claimant also brought breach of contract claims. The tribunal held that those claims were not well-founded and dismissed them. Reasons were given orally at the hearing, and the written judgment records the outcomes only.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of disability was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Harassment | Disability-related harassment was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Direct discrimination on grounds of race was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Race-related harassment was dismissed as not well-founded. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Victimisation under the Equality Act 2010 was dismissed as not well-founded. | 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.