Case 1601538/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Hathaway v Santander UK plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601538/2018
- Decision date
- 23 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Hathaway
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment determined a preliminary issue of disability. The respondent admitted that the claimant's polycystic kidney disease amounted to a disability, but disputed that the claimant suffered from depression or another qualifying mental impairment. The tribunal therefore focused on whether the claimant had a mental impairment from September 2017 onwards, the period relied on for the alleged acts of disability discrimination.
The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence about the cumulative effect of his own health, his brother's transplant, his wife's illness and surgery, his son's cancer and PKD diagnosis, and difficulties at work. It found that from June 2017 the claimant had symptoms affecting normal day-to-day activities, including low motivation, intrusive thoughts, suicidal thoughts, paranoia, auditory hallucinations, avoidance of family responsibilities and social interaction, aggression and irritability at work, and difficulty concentrating and remembering things. Those symptoms deteriorated after his suspension in October 2017 and continued, with gradual improvement, until around July 2018.
Applying the disability definition, the tribunal found that the symptoms had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and that it could infer a qualifying mental impairment without attaching a specific diagnostic label. It also found that, viewed at September 2017 and again at dismissal in June 2018, the substantial adverse effects were long term or likely to last for the statutory period. The substantive unfair dismissal and disability discrimination claims were not decided in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only. The tribunal decided that the claimant had a mental impairment and was a disabled person by reason of that impairment at the material time. The substantive disability discrimination claims under sections 15 and 21 Equality Act 2010 were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(2) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1) Equality Act 2010
- Ministry of Defence v Hay UKEAT/0571/07/CEA
- J v DLA Piper UKEAT/0263/09
- Royal Bank of Scotland PLC v Morris UKEAT/0436/10/MAA
- Guidance for matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
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.