Case 6002985/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Renee Cunningham v London Borough of Newham — 2026
- Case reference
- 6002985/2025
- Decision date
- 20 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Lewis Members
- Venue
- East London
- Panel members
- Mr J Quinlan, Mr J Webb
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Renee Cunningham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the case at East London Employment Tribunal on 17, 18, 19 and 20 February 2026 before Employment Judge C Lewis with members Mr J Quinlan and Mr J Webb.
The unanimous judgment dismissed the complaints of harassment related to disability, direct disability discrimination, and unfair dismissal on the basis that each was not well-founded. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment states that the complaint of harassment related to disability was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the complaint of direct disability discrimination was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the complaint of unfair dismissal was not well-founded and was dismissed. Written reasons were not included in the provided text. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.