Case 2402731/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Morrow v Air Tech Innovations Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402731/2021
- Decision date
- 6 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Members
- Venue
- Liverpool
- Panel members
- Mr M Gelling, Mr A Wells
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Morrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting at Liverpool before Employment Judge Horne with members Mr M Gelling and Mr A Wells, gave a unanimous judgment on 17 March 2022. It found that Air Tech Innovations Limited discriminated against Mr K Morrow because of something arising in consequence of his disability, and also found a separate disability discrimination claim for failure to make adjustments. The extracted judgment does not set out detailed reasons in writing because reasons were given orally at the hearing.
On remedy, the tribunal recorded that the assessment should proceed on the basis that, had the respondent not discriminated against Mr Morrow, his assignment would inevitably have ended immediately after one week’s work. No monetary figure is stated in the extracted text, so no split award or total award can be extracted from this judgment text alone.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Upheld on the basis that the respondent discriminated against the claimant because of something arising in consequence of his disability. | Upheld | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Upheld on the basis that the respondent discriminated against the claimant by failing to make adjustments. | Upheld | Disability | — |
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.