In person v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of anaphylaxis during April and May 2022. The respondent accepted that the claimant was disabled as a result of asthma, but disputed that his anaphylaxis met the statutory definition. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered his medical records, care plan and account of the effect of the condition.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment, namely anaphylaxis, and that it caused adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities including eating, preparing food and socialising. It accepted that he had to avoid nuts and foods containing nuts, check food sources carefully, warn restaurants, use separate utensils, take precautions when travelling, and keep his EpiPen accessible. The tribunal also accepted evidence that he had suffered prior hospital admissions and that the condition had been diagnosed when he was a child.

On substantial effect, the tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on Metroline Travel Ltd v Stoute and found that this claimant's condition was distinguishable because it involved a very strong reaction to nuts and a wider set of avoidance measures. Applying the statutory guidance, including section B7, the tribunal held that the claimant's coping strategy itself had a substantial adverse effect on daily life rather than removing that effect. It also found that the adverse effect was long term because the condition was lifelong.

The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant date because of his anaphylaxis. The judgment records that the claim would proceed to the final hearing, but no substantive liability or remedy decision was made in this judgment.