Case 3304342/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Durbridge v Apple (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3304342/2022
- Decision date
- 23 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Durbridge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill, sitting alone, found that Mr A Durbridge had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 from prior to July 2020. The judgment records that written reasons were requested and would be supplied.
The tribunal also recorded that the 18 June 2021 email from Darcy Wallace, asking whether the claimant had considered moving back from being an employee to being a contractor, was not without prejudice. The respondent conceded that point.
The decision on the other issue addressed at the hearing was reserved and would be sent to the parties in writing. No remedy or final monetary award is recorded in this extract.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found that Mr A Durbridge had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 from prior to July 2020. The judgment also records that the 18 June 2021 email was not without prejudice, on the respondent's concession, and that another issue addressed at the hearing was reserved. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.