Case 2411900/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hughes v Set Produce Limited HELD AT: Manchester — 2025
- Case reference
- 2411900/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
- Panel members
- Ms K Fulton, Mr BJ McCaughey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that in September 2023 Mr G Hughes was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of a physical impairment of his right ankle, and that the respondent ought reasonably to have known that. It further found that, when dismissing him in September 2023, the respondent treated him unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability.
On that basis, the tribunal held that the complaint under section 15 Equality Act 2010 was well founded. It awarded compensation for unlawful discrimination in the sum of £10,265.00, comprising £4,000.00 for injury to feelings, £426.72 interest on that element, £5,542.68 for financial losses, and £295.60 interest on the financial loss element.
The tribunal did not award any uplift because the respondent had provided a written statement of the main terms of employment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that in September 2023 the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of a physical impairment of his right ankle, that the respondent ought reasonably to have known this, and that in dismissing him in September 2023 it treated him unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of his disability, contrary to section 15 Equality Act 2010. | Upheld | Disability | £10,265 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £10,265
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £5,543
- compensatory remedy recorded
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 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.