Mr M Toy v Brencham (1988) Ltd t/a Proteus Industrial — 2020

Mr Toy worked for the respondent from 8 May 2012 until his dismissal with effect from 10 December 2018. He presented his claim on 31 March 2019 and alleged disability discrimination, including failures to make reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability. The tribunal identified complaints about heavy lifting, loading and unloading panels, use of lifting or gantry equipment, assistance with lifting and driving, and equipment to avoid lifting as matters that arose before 8 October 2018, and noted a separate complaint about attending a sickness meeting with only a colleague or trade union representative, which it treated as in time.

Applying the statutory just and equitable test under section 123 of the Equality Act 2010 and the Court of Appeal guidance in Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board v Morgan, with reference to Robertson v Bexley Community Centre, the tribunal refused to extend time for the out-of-time complaints. It found the delay substantial, the claimant's explanation vague, and no adequate evidence that mental health prevented him from bringing the claim earlier. It also noted that he had instructed personal injury solicitors in 2018, which did not fit with his explanation for the delay, and that the respondent would be prejudiced by the passage of time.

On disability, the tribunal found that Mr Toy had not proved a physical impairment from back and knee problems, and had not proved a mental impairment. It accepted some evidence that depression affected concentration, memory, sleep and socialising, but found the GP records referred only to low mood and stress-related problems, that the fit notes did not refer to depression, anxiety or PTSD, and that later letters relied on from a wellbeing service and Serona Therapy were given no weight. The tribunal also found the evidence on the claimed physical and mental effects was inconsistent and insufficient to show a substantial long-term adverse effect at the relevant time. As a result, all unlawful disability discrimination claims were dismissed and no award was made.