Mr. A Carr v Self Invested Portfolios Limited & Others — 2022

This was a reserved judgment on a preliminary issue in which the tribunal decided whether Mr A Carr was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The parties agreed that he had the relevant impairments, dyspepsia and irritable bowel syndrome, and the only issue was whether those impairments had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period, which the tribunal identified as starting in 2019 and running to his dismissal on 29 September 2020.

The tribunal accepted Mr Carr's evidence that his conditions caused him to use the toilet numerous times a day, spend longer in the toilet than people without irritable bowel syndrome, and plan his life around access to toilets. It found that he experienced anxiety about accidents, tried to remain in close proximity to toilets where possible, and that this effect on his daily life was substantial. The tribunal also accepted that he had pain from dyspepsia, that medication reduced but did not remove that pain, and that his condition caused problems with sleep, which it treated as a normal day-to-day activity.

The tribunal considered the Equality Act Guidance and noted factors relevant to the claimant, including difficulty with toileting and the need for toilet access. It found the claimant to be a credible witness and said that the fact he did not regularly consult his GP during the relevant period did not mean his conditions were not affecting him significantly. It also noted that he had longstanding stomach problems, had previously seen a specialist, had sinister causes ruled out, and was on prescribed medication.

The tribunal therefore held that Mr Carr was disabled by reason of both irritable bowel syndrome and dyspepsia because each condition had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during the relevant time. No monetary remedy was awarded or discussed in this judgment, which was confined to the disability-status issue.