Case 2203813/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 2203813/2019
- Decision date
- 13 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing was listed to decide whether Mr A Richards was disabled within the meaning of s6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of injuries to his back and legs sustained during Army service and/or osteoarthritis in his hips, and from what date. Employment Judge Brown sat alone. The tribunal accepted that the relevant question was whether the conditions, taken together or separately, produced a physical impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.
The tribunal accepted that Mr Richards had ongoing back and knee pain from 2007. It relied on the 2007 War Pension examination, which recorded intermittent knee pain, difficulty exercising for more than 10 minutes, a stiffened gait, discomfort from the back condition, limited extension, and difficulty with sitting, bending to the floor, and getting onto a couch. It also accepted his evidence that the symptoms recurred over many years, with GP records showing intermittent prescriptions for pain relief and later records of continuing pain.
The tribunal found those effects were more than minor or trivial because they caused pain and difficulty on stairs, sitting, bending, and getting into bed or onto a couch, and that the effects had recurred for at least 10 years before 2018. Applying the disability definition, including the approach to recurrence and long-term effect in Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010, the tribunal concluded that from about 2010 the effects were to be treated as continuing and that Mr Richards was a disabled person at the relevant times. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary disability-status issue under s.6 Equality Act 2010; the tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of his back and knee conditions throughout his employment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 12 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC Guidance on Matters to be taken into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability (2011)
- Cruickshanks v VAW Motorcrest Limited
- Goodwin v Post Office
- Chacon Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA
- Paterson v Metropolitan Police Commissioner
- Schedule 1 paragraph 8 Equality Act 2010
- Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey
- Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
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.