Case 6001126/2023 · Employment Tribunal

In person, supported by her friend Mr R Moodey For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 6001126/2023
Decision date: 26 November 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge James
Venue: Sheffield
Panel members: Ms M Conlon, Mr M Elwen

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

In person, supported by her friend Mr R Moodey For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Sheffield on 25 and 26 November 2024 before Employment Judge James, with Ms M Conlon and Mr M Elwen sitting as lay members. Ms Oxborough appeared in person, supported by her friend Mr R Moodey, and brought claims against Sainsbury's Supermarkets Limited for unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, and unfavourable treatment under s.15 Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal dismissed all three claims. It found that the unfair dismissal claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996 was not upheld, the direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was not upheld, and the s.15 Equality Act 2010 claim of unfavourable treatment was not upheld. The judgment does not record any monetary award or other remedy.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination claim under s.13 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	Unfavourable treatment claim under s.15 Equality Act 2010.	Dismissed	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Claim under s.94 Employment Rights Act 1996.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

3 references

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.