Case 3200988/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Cooke v Greenwich Leisure Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3200988/2020
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jones Members
- Panel members
- Ms A Berry, Ms Y Fisher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Cooke
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. It also found that the respondent knew, and could reasonably have been expected to know, that he was disabled from the date of his diagnosis in December 2016.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 24 September 2019, so the complaints of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal failed. It also found that the respondent did not operate the provisions, criteria or practices relied on by the claimant, so there was no duty to make reasonable adjustments. The complaint of discrimination arising from disability was dismissed.
The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. It also found that he committed gross misconduct, and dismissed the breach of contract/wrongful dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claimant did not make a protected disclosure on 24 September 2019 and that the complaint of detriment and automatic unfair dismissal failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments: the tribunal found that the respondent did not operate the provisions, criteria or practices relied on and that there was no duty to make reasonable adjustments. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability failed and was dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found that the claimant was fairly dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a breach of contract/wrongful dismissal complaint and states that it failed because the claimant committed gross misconduct. | 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.