Case 1601578/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Durbin v Marks and Spencer plc HELD BY: CVP — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601578/2020
- Decision date
- 1 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Durbin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 29 June 2021, Employment Judge T. Vincent Ryan determined whether Mr J. Durbin’s asthma met the definition of disability under section 6 Equality Act 2010 for the purposes of his disability discrimination claims. The claimant said he had been diagnosed with asthma at age 5, used inhalers on a daily basis, and would struggle with ordinary activities if he did not take them or if they were ineffective. He described symptoms including a tight, heavy, wheezy chest and difficulty breathing, and said he had experienced an asthma episode in January 2021 that led him to call NHS 111.
The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence, including his description of symptoms and treatment regime, even though the written impact statement and medical material gave limited detail and there was no record of hospital or GP attendance for an asthma episode. The judge accepted that the condition was long-term and found that, without the regular treatment regime, the asthma would have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The tribunal therefore found that Mr Durbin satisfied the section 6 EqA definition of disability by reason of asthma.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided that the claimant was a disabled person for Equality Act purposes by reason of asthma at the time material to his disability discrimination claims. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Secretary of State Guidance on the definition of disability (2011)
- substantial adverse effect
- long-term effect
- normal day-to-day activities
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.