Case 1401891/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Trevor Hackett v Ministry of Defence — 2021
- Case reference
- 1401891/2020
- Decision date
- 11 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Oliver Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Trevor Hackett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant times. The respondent conceded that the claimant's diabetes was a disability, so disability discrimination claims based on diabetes were allowed to proceed to a full hearing with the claimant's other remaining claims.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment from January 2019 in the form of depression and anxiety, but did not find stress to be a separate mental impairment. It found that communication and concentration, both normal day-to-day activities, were adversely affected and that the adverse effect became substantial by late August 2019.
The tribunal found that the substantial adverse effects of depression and anxiety had not lasted 12 months by the time of the alleged discrimination, and that the claimant had not shown that, at the relevant time, they were likely to last for 12 months. Disability discrimination claims based on depression, anxiety and stress were therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled by reason of depression, anxiety and stress at the relevant time, so disability discrimination claims based on those impairments were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent conceded that the claimant's diabetes was a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, and disability discrimination claims based on diabetes could proceed to a full hearing. No final merits outcome was determined in this preliminary judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6(1)
- Equality Act guidance paragraph D3
- Equality Act 2010 section 212
- paragraph 2, Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Tesco Stores Limited v Tennant [2020] IRLR 363
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227
- could well happen
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.