Case 3311882/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Mr C Fray (Representative) For the v Respondent — 2023

Case reference: 3311882/2022
Decision date: 23 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge R Wood
Venue: Bury St Edmunds
Panel members: Mrs S Elizabeth, Mr A Schooler

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Mr C Fray (Representative) For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At Bury St Edmunds, after a hearing on 20 to 23 November 2023 before Employment Judge R Wood sitting with Mrs S Elizabeth and Mr A Schooler, the tribunal dismissed Mr N Oliveira's unfair dismissal claim against WM Morrisons Supermarket Ltd. The tribunal found that he was not unfairly dismissed.

The tribunal also dismissed the disability discrimination claim, which was framed as a failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010. It recorded that the first respondent had not failed to make reasonable adjustments.

For the avoidance of doubt, the claims against the former second and third respondents, Miss I Makowska and Mr J Beaumont, were also dismissed. The judgment does not record any monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

2 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal held that the claimant was not unfairly dismissed by the first respondent.	Dismissed	—	—
Disability discrimination	The tribunal rejected the claim that the first respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.