Case 6017291/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Dulsa Kocan v Manor of Groves Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017291/2025
- Decision date
- 10 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gardiner Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Dulsa Kocan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a hearing on 3, 4, 5 and 9 June 2026, Employment Judge Gardiner found Miss Dulsa Kocan's complaint of unfair dismissal contrary to section 98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996 well founded. Her complaint that Manor of Groves Limited failed to make reasonable adjustments contrary to section 20 Equality Act 2010 was not well founded and was dismissed. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally but does not set out the underlying factual findings or further reasoning.
No remedy was determined in this judgment. An in-person remedy hearing was listed for 18 December 2026 to decide the remedy due for the unfair dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Remedy was reserved for a hearing scheduled for 18 December 2026. | Upheld | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The complaint was specifically a failure to make reasonable adjustments contrary to section 20 Equality Act 2010. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.98(4) Employment Rights Act 1996
- s.20 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.