Case 2202044/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Macaulay v Saffery LLP — 2024
- Case reference
- 2202044/2024
- Decision date
- 10 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Macaulay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant had a mental impairment of anxiety and depression. It relied on the claimant's evidence, limited GP records, a psychotherapist's report, and references to health matters in the respondent's internal process, and concluded that she did have anxiety and depression.
The tribunal found that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including sleep, concentration, reading and reviewing documents, memory, planning, exercise, and attendance at work. It accepted that therapy was treatment and found that, even with therapy, there was a substantial adverse effect.
On timing, the tribunal treated the onset of substantial effect as November or December 2022 but found that the claimant met the definition of disability from the August 2023 performance meeting onward, when her symptoms had been continuing for around eight to nine months and it could well happen that they would last at least 12 months.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary decision on disability status only. The tribunal found that the claimant met the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability from August 2023 onward; it did not determine the substantive disability discrimination allegations or remedy. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP 2010 ICR 1052
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- SCA v Boyle
- statutory Guidance on the Definition of Disability section B
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.