Mr M O Morohunmubo v Ocado Central Services Ltd: 2305964/2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2305964/2024
Between
Mr M O MorohunmuboClaimantOcado Central Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge AtkinsMr C Ilangaratne (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 17 July 2026

JUDGMENT

The judgment of the Employment Tribunal is as follows: Notice Pay[1]The complaint of breach of contract in relation to notice pay is not wellfounded and so it fails. Holiday Pay[2]The complaint in respect of holiday pay is not well-founded and so it fails. Unfair Dismissal[3]The complaint of unfair dismissal is well-founded. The claimant was unfairly dismissed.[4]There is a 50% chance that the claimant would have been fairly dismissed in any event.[5]The respondent unreasonably failed to comply with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures 2015 and it is just and equitable to increase the compensatory award payable to the claimant by 10% in accordance with s 207A Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Case No: 2305964/2024[6]The respondent shall pay the claimant the following sums:(a) A basic award of £2,047.20.(b) A compensatory award of £2,076.98. Note that these are the actual sums payable to the claimant after any deductions or uplifts have been applied. Disability Discrimination[7]The complaint of direct discrimination on the grounds of disability, contrary to section 13 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails.[8]The compliant of discrimination arising from disability, contrary to section 15 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails.[9]The complaint of indirect discrimination on the grounds of disability, contrary to section 19 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails. Reasonable Adjustments[10]The complaint of failure to make reasonable adjustments, contrary to sections 20 and 21 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails. Harassment[11]The complaint of harassment, contrary to section 26 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails. Victimisation[12]The complaint of victimisation, contrary to section 27 of the Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and so it fails.