Miss Y Bereket v Bolt Court Chambers Limited — 2024

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether Miss Y Bereket was a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010 at 14 December 2023. She had worked for Bolt Court Chambers Limited as an assistant practice manager from 21 June 2022 and had been on sick leave from 25 October 2023. At an earlier hearing on 11 June 2024 she had withdrawn claims for unfair dismissal, unpaid wages and notice pay, and the remaining matters concerned reasonable adjustments and discrimination arising from disability.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant's anxiety and depression had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities during her sickness absence from 25 October 2023 to 14 December 2023. It accepted evidence of difficulty socialising, concentrating and taking pleasure in everyday activities, together with the diagnosis on 27 October 2023, the fit notes through to 31 December 2023, and the later GP and iCope material referring to anhedonia and severe anxiety and low mood. The tribunal did not find that she had deliberately exaggerated her symptoms.

Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, the 2011 disability guidance and SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle, the tribunal first rejected the suggestion that the claimant had proved a substantial adverse effect lasting for 12 months before December 2023. It was not satisfied, on the evidence of the 2017, 2021 and 2022 episodes, that those earlier events showed a long-term impairment; in particular, the tribunal could not link the earlier stomach and sleep problems to a mental health impairment, and it treated some earlier reactions as responses to stressful life events rather than proved manifestations of disability.

The tribunal nevertheless concluded that, as at 14 December 2023, the claimant's substantial adverse effect could well have continued for a further 10 months. That conclusion was based on the recent diagnosis, the ongoing fit notes, the pending CBT referral and the evidence that she remained affected despite being away from work. It therefore found that she was disabled at the relevant date for the purposes of her request to work from home and the respondent's decision to dismiss her. No remedy was determined in this judgment.