Case 1602182/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lubran v Powys County Council — 2023
- Case reference
- 1602182/2023
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd-Lawrie Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lubran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing considered whether the Claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, whether he should be allowed to amend his claim, and further case management. The Respondent conceded that the Claimant's back condition amounted to a physical impairment and that he was disabled by that impairment during the relevant period, so disability discrimination claims relating to the back issue continue.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not established disability by way of mental impairment. It considered his evidence, medical records and occupational health material, and found that the references to stress showed reactions to perceived adverse circumstances rather than an underlying mental impairment with the required substantial and long-term adverse effect.
The Tribunal refused permission to add section 44 Employment Rights Act claims. It found that those claims had not previously been before the Tribunal, would add a new cause of action, were very substantially out of time, and that the hardship to the Respondent in allowing the amendment outweighed the hardship to the Claimant.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the Tribunal found the Claimant was not disabled by way of mental impairment, but was disabled by way of physical impairment relating to his back condition as accepted by the Respondent. The disability discrimination claims relating to the back issue continue. | Other | Disability | — |
| Other | The Claimant's application to amend to add section 44 Employment Rights Act health and safety detriment claims was refused. The Tribunal found the section 44 claims were a new cause of action and were very substantially out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- Ministry of Defence v Hay
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs
- McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd
- Selkent Bus Company Ltd v Moore
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership
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.