Case 3312745/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Islam, Solicitor For the v Burger and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312745/2022
- Decision date
- 13 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss Islam, Solicitor For the
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Postle, sitting at Norwich on 13 April 2023, recorded that the claimant, Rowan Harvey, succeeded on Equality Act 2010 claims against all four respondents: Burger and Social (Shouldham Thorpe) Limited, Burger and Social (Norwich) Limited, Luke Fisher and Adam Nobel. The judgment identifies the claims as disability discrimination, in particular failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation.
The tribunal found those claims to be well founded against all four respondents. No further reasoning, factual findings, or legal analysis is set out in the extracted text, and no monetary remedy is recorded in the judgment extract. The judgment was dated 16 May 2023 and sent to the parties on 2 June 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claimant's Equality Act 2010 claims for disability, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, were well founded against all four respondents. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the victimisation claim was well founded against all four respondents. | Upheld | — | — |
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.