Case 3302311/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rumyanka Spasova v Oak Farm (Taverham) Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3302311/2023
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Members
- Venue
- Norwich
- Panel members
- Ms L Salmon, Mr M Kidd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rumyanka Spasova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Rumyanka Spasova's disability discrimination claim against Oak Farm (Taverham) Limited succeeded on 14 April 2025. Following a remedy hearing in Norwich by CVP on 16 and 17 June 2026, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay £153,804 in compensation.
The award included £56,989 for past financial loss, with £8,993 in interest. The tribunal also awarded £8,525 for future financial loss and £2,754 for pension loss.
Compensation for injury to feelings was £25,000, with £7,886 in interest. Damages for personal injury were £16,000, with £4,756 in interest. The three interest amounts totalled £21,635.
The total award also included £22,901 in benefits subject to recoupment. The judgment was dated 18 June 2026. Full reasons were given orally at the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | This remedy judgment records that the claim succeeded on 14 April 2025. It does not specify the form of disability discrimination or set out the underlying liability findings. | Upheld | Disability | £153,804 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £153,804
- across all upheld claims
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.