Case 1400575/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A O Dailamani v Laing O’Rourke Services Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400575/2024
- Decision date
- 22 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Appearances
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr A O Dailamani
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe respondent had conceded that the claimant had OCD, depression and anxiety, and further conceded that long COVID amounted to a disability between 23 November 2021 and April 2023 inclusive. The tribunal therefore had to decide whether long COVID was also a disability between October 2021 and 22 November 2021, and whether it remained a disability from May 2023.
The tribunal found that between October 2021 and 22 November 2021 the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of long COVID. It found that the substantial adverse effects of long COVID on the claimant's day to day activities were likely to last 12 months or more by October 2021.
The tribunal found that from May 2023 the claimant was not a disabled person because of long COVID. It accepted that the claimant remained disabled because of depression, anxiety disorder and OCD, but found that long COVID no longer continued to have a substantial adverse effect on day to day activities and was not shown to be likely to recur.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined preliminary issues about whether long COVID amounted to a disability during specified periods. It did not adjudicate liability for the disability discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Herry v Dudley MBC and another UKEAT/100/16
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe 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.