Case 1600274/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Robert Innes v Orbis Education and Care Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600274/2024
- Decision date
- 21 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Representation
- Venue
- Haverfordwest
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Robert Innes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary judgment in Mr Robert Innes v Orbis Education and Care Limited. The tribunal did not determine the substantive discrimination complaint. Instead, it addressed whether the claim was in time and whether the Claimant met the statutory definition of disability.
The tribunal found that the claim had not been brought within the three-month period beginning with the date of the act complained of. However, it held that the claim was brought within another period that it considered to be just and equitable, so the time point did not prevent the case from continuing.
The tribunal also found that Mr Innes was disabled at the relevant times for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. On that basis, the claim was permitted to proceed to a final hearing. The judgment records no award and no substantive liability findings.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary judgment only. The tribunal found the claim was presented outside the normal three-month time limit but within a period that was just and equitable, and found that the Claimant was disabled at the relevant times for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010. The claim was therefore allowed to proceed to a final hearing; no merits decision was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- just and equitable
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.