In person For the 1st v Respondent — 2019

At this open preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Dimbylow, the claimant withdrew his breach of contract claim by consent. The tribunal also recorded that the claimant's ET1 already included an automatic unfair dismissal point under section 100 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, so no amendment was needed for that issue, and it listed the section 100 claim together with holiday pay for a later closed preliminary hearing. The second respondent was removed from the proceedings as it was not a proper respondent to any other claims advanced by the claimant.

On the disability issue, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had anxiety and depression, with a history of anxiety going back to 2003 and the most recent medical note in December 2016 describing mixed anxiety and depression as mild but recurring. It found that, at the relevant time from mid-2017 to 11 September 2018, the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal relied on evidence that he could work full-time, travel widely including abroad, use public transport, maintain relationships, and manage personal wellbeing and safety, and it noted that he had adapted his behaviour and had not been to his doctor for more than two years.

Accordingly, the tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims against both respondents. It also refused the claimant's application to amend the claim to add whistleblowing allegations. Applying the Selkent balancing exercise, it held that the proposed amendment would add a substantial new cause of action, and it was not persuaded that the claimant had identified a coherent qualifying protected disclosure or a link between any disclosure and the detriments or dismissal said to follow.