Case 6001305/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss K Phillips v Orchid Orthopedics Solutions Sheffield Ltd — 2024

Case reference: 6001305/2023
Decision date: 1 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Bright REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss K Phillips

Respondent

Orchid Orthopedics Solutions Sheffield Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary hearing in public on 30 April 2024 before Employment Judge Bright, the tribunal dealt with the claimant's complaint of discrimination arising from disability against Orchid Orthopedics Solutions Sheffield Ltd. The tribunal found that the complaint had not been presented within the applicable time limit and decided that it was not just and equitable to extend time.

On that basis, the discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed. The tribunal also refused the claimant's application to amend her claim so as to include a complaint of direct disability discrimination. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The preliminary hearing record states that the complaint of discrimination arising from disability was out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; the claim was dismissed. The claimant's application to amend to add direct disability discrimination was refused, but no separate substantive determination of that proposed claim was recorded.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.