Mr A Rehman v -v- DHL Services Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020

At a preliminary hearing on 14 October 2020, Employment Judge Perry sitting alone held that Mr A Rehman was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time, which the judge treated as December 2018 to 27 August 2019. The judgment considered three asserted impairments: bilateral keratoconus, chronic jaw/TMJ pain, and mental health conditions described as stress, anxiety and depression.

On keratoconus, the tribunal accepted that the condition existed but found that the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The judge relied on the evidence that contact lenses corrected the effects to a significant extent, and found no medical evidence supporting the claimant's account that the effects could not be corrected or that he had been medically advised to avoid the activities he described. The tribunal also treated parts of the claimant's account as inconsistent with the medical material.

On the jaw/TMJ issue, the tribunal accepted that there were symptoms and some recorded pain, but found that the claimant had exaggerated the extent of the effects, including the effect on speech and the severity of pain. The judge noted Dr Speculand's evidence that the fractures had healed extremely well, there was no evidence of arthritis or degenerative change at the TMJ, and any ongoing problem appeared to be linked to poor dental hygiene, with a soft mouth guard and dental hygiene identified as potential routes to resolution. On the mental health issue, the tribunal accepted that clinicians had diagnosed mixed anxiety and depressive disorder or clinical depression, but found that the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities during the material period. The judge placed little weight on the claimant's account because of inconsistencies between his evidence and the medical records, and did not accept that the claimed effects on socialising, eating, self-harm and avoidance were made out. Considered cumulatively, the impairments still did not meet the section 6 threshold.