Case 3201951/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Smith v Wm Morrisons Supermarkets Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3201951/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Panel members
- Mr R Blanco, Mr P Lush
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal unanimously dismissed the complaint of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The written judgment records that the complaint was not well founded and did not succeed, with oral reasons having been given at the hearing.
The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints of unfair dismissal and breach of contract, described in the judgment as wrongful dismissal. The written record includes a calculation referring to nine complete years' service, nine weeks' notice, mitigation after two weeks, and damages of two weeks' net wages, but the operative judgment states that the claims did not succeed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well founded and did not succeed. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment describes this as a claim of breach of contract (wrongful dismissal) and states that it was not well founded and did not succeed. A calculation of two weeks' net wages as damages appears after the judgment, but the operative judgment dismisses the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 15 of the 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.