In person For the v Respondent — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Miss Heggadon was a disabled person at the material times for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal noted that the claimant had a knee condition, including bilateral chondromalacia patellae and joint hypermobility syndrome, supported by consultant rheumatology and physiotherapy evidence dating from 2016 onwards. The respondent accepted that she had a physical impairment that had lasted more than 12 months, but argued that the relevant time was September 2018 and that there was no substantial adverse effect at that time.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had limited medical material, but found the consultant and physiotherapy reports, together with her own evidence about day-to-day impact, sufficient to show a substantial adverse effect on mobility during the relevant period. It relied on her evidence that she parked as close as possible to work, used lifts instead of stairs, struggled to bend her knees, and had difficulty with tasks such as pushing a supermarket trolley and hoovering, with coping strategies used to manage flare-ups. Applying the Equality Act definition of disability, the tribunal held that the effect on normal day-to-day activities was more than minor or trivial and that the impairment was long-term and likely to recur.

The tribunal therefore found that Miss Heggadon was a disabled person at the relevant times and that her disability discrimination claims could proceed. The age and sex discrimination claims had been withdrawn by the claimant and were dismissed on that basis. No remedy was determined in this judgment, which dealt only with disability status.