Case 3200049/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Trevor Averre-Beeson v Ortu Federation Limited and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200049/2021
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barrowclough Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Trevor Averre-Beeson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 14 January 2022, Employment Judge Barrowclough determined only whether Mr Trevor Averre-Beeson was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of severe asthma during the material period. The tribunal identified the material time as 1 August 2020 to 31 December 2020. It did not decide the substantive liability issues on the discrimination complaints at this hearing, but held that the complaints under ss.15 and 20 Equality Act 2010 would proceed to the full merits hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered from severe asthma since about 1979, used inhalers daily, had been hospitalised with pneumonia in 2015, and experienced flare-ups that affected activities such as walking fast, walking uphill, and climbing stairs. It relied on the medical records and Dr Peck’s 17 August 2020 letter, including the evidence that he was in the "extremely vulnerable" Covid-19 category, and found that the absence of an expert medical report was not fatal. Applying s.6 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Goodwin v The Patent Office, the tribunal concluded that the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and that Mr Averre-Beeson was disabled at the material time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person by reason of severe asthma at the material time (1 August 2020 to 31 December 2020) and recorded that the discrimination arising from disability and reasonable adjustments complaints would proceed to a full merits hearing; no final liability or remedy was determined. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
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.