Case 6001194/2025 · Employment Tribunal
L Cox v Newbridge Engineering Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001194/2025
- Decision date
- 18 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Cox
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal found well founded L Cox's complaints that Newbridge Engineering Limited discriminated against him by failing to comply with its duty to make reasonable adjustments during his employment and by dismissing him. Both disability discrimination complaints succeeded.
The respondent was ordered to pay £34,926.97 in compensation, including £17,732 for past financial losses, £2,600 for future financial loss and £12,000 for injury to feelings. Of the injury-to-feelings award, £2,350 was attributed to discrimination during employment and the remainder to the discriminatory dismissal. The total also included £1,103.76 interest on past financial losses and £1,491.21 interest on injury to feelings, calculated under the Employment Tribunals (Interest on Awards in Discrimination Cases) Regulations 1996.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to comply with the duty to make reasonable adjustments during employment. Of the £12,000 injury-to-feelings award, £2,350 was attributed to discrimination during employment, but the judgment did not provide a complete award for this complaint. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Disability discrimination by dismissal. The remainder of the £12,000 injury-to-feelings award was attributed to the discriminatory dismissal, but the judgment did not provide a complete award for this complaint. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £34,927
- across all upheld claims
- Compensatory award
- £20,332
- compensatory remedy recorded
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.