Case 6004973/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benedict Das v Burberry Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004973/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- London Central ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benedict Das
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the claimant brought disability discrimination claims against Burberry Limited, including failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability, and direct disability discrimination.
The failure to make reasonable adjustments claim concerning items (a) to (e) in the agreed List of Issues was dismissed by way of withdrawal. The remaining claims, comprising discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning items (f) to (i), and direct disability discrimination, were found not well founded and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss. 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, items (a) to (e) inclusive in the agreed List of Issues, was dismissed by way of withdrawal. | Withdrawn | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss. 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010, items (f) to (i) inclusive in the agreed List of Issues, was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Direct discrimination in relation to disability under s.13 Equality Act 2010 was found not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- ss. 20 and 21 Equality Act 2010
- s.15 Equality Act 2010
- s.13 Equality Act 2010
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.