Case 3313287/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Davies, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313287/2019
- Decision date
- 2 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr L Davies, solicitor For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Bedeau in Watford on 2 June 2021, heard by cloud video platform. The claimant, Mr David Omigie, was represented by Mr L Davies and the respondent, Tesco Stores Ltd, by Mr P Gorasia.
The tribunal recorded that the claims of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising in consequence of disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, and automatic unfair dismissal were all dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. No substantive findings on liability were made beyond the withdrawals.
The judgment also recorded that the individual respondents named in the proceedings were dismissed from the case because the respondent was not running the statutory defence and would accept vicarious liability for the acts of its employees. The listed individuals were Ms Janet Peasland, Ms Jorijine Leonard, Ms Maria Ditella, Ms Gemma Riley, Ms Paswinder Soora, Ms Georgina Newitt, and Mr Nick Isaac, together with any other unnamed individual respondent.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Direct disability discrimination; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising in consequence of disability; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal; dismissed upon withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.