Case 3306318/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Kosher Deli — 2022
- Case reference
- 3306318/2020
- Decision date
- 22 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G Tobin Members
- Panel members
- Ms L Jaffe, Mrs J Hancock
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford Employment Tribunal hearing on 14 and 15 September 2021 and 21 and 22 June 2022, the tribunal heard Mr Anthony Murphy's claims against Kosher Deli (UK) Limited. The tribunal found that at all material times the claimant was a disabled person within s6 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal unanimously rejected the race discrimination claim, finding that the claimant was not directly discriminated against on the grounds of race in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010. It also rejected the disability discrimination arising from disability claim, finding that the claimant was not subject to discrimination arising from his disability in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010.
The judgment records that, the case being concluded, proceedings were dismissed. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not directly discriminated against on grounds of race, in breach of s13 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found the claimant was not subject to discrimination arising from disability, in breach of s15 Equality Act 2010. It also found the claimant was a disabled person under s6 Equality Act 2010 at all material times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s6 Equality Act 2010
- s13 Equality Act 2010
- s15 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.