Mr Rohan Brown v SPP Transport Ltd — 2023

At the hearing on 9 November 2023 before Employment Judge Cheetham KC, the only live issue was whether Mr Rohan Brown was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted that he was a worker and also accepted, for avoidance of doubt, that he was an employee within the meaning of the Act. The judgment therefore determined the disability issue only.

The claimant had been employed by SPP Transport Ltd as a delivery driver from 13 March 2017 to 23 December 2021. He relied on a condition described as hydrocele, which he said caused severe pain under his testicles, in his bottom and lower back, together with digestive issues and haemorrhoids. The tribunal accepted his evidence as straightforward and unexaggerated, and accepted the symptoms described in his short witness statement and impact statement. It also noted GP records showing references to hydrocele in 2010 and 2018, further GP attendance for lower back pain, abdominal pain, digestive issues and haemorrhoids during 2020 and 2021, and a later operation in May 2022 to repair the hydrocele.

Applying s.6 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Goodwin v Patent Office, the tribunal considered whether there was a physical impairment, whether it had an effect on normal day-to-day activities, whether that effect was substantial, and whether it was long term. It accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment and that, even if the GP notes did not present a single unifying diagnosis for every symptom, the evidence showed a cumulative impairment affecting his daily activities. The tribunal also referred to J v DLA Piper UK LLP, the EHRC guidance that the effect of an impairment matters rather than its cause, and Cruikshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd on the relevant time for assessing disability.

The tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that expert evidence was needed to link all of the symptoms to a single diagnosis. It found that the claimant's evidence and the medical records were enough to establish that he was suffering from an impairment with substantial and long-term adverse effects. It therefore held that Mr Brown was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material time. No monetary remedy was recorded in this judgment.