Case 2300458/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. M. Yakub v HSBC Bank plc — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300458/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sage Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. M. Yakub
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered three alleged disabilities: mild small vessel disease, depression, and degenerative disc/back, leg and foot problems. It found no evidence that mild small vessel disease had any adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
For depression, the tribunal accepted that symptoms began in September 2017, but found that the evidence showed mild to moderate depression with poor sleep and fatigue, improving by May to July 2018. It concluded that depression did not have a substantial adverse impact on normal day-to-day activities and was not shown to be long-term or likely to recur.
For the physical condition, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had foot pain, but found his evidence about the severity and duration of physical impairment inconsistent and, at points, not credible. It relied on occupational health material, functional assessment evidence, surveillance evidence, and the absence of corroborating medical evidence to conclude that the physical impairment did not have a substantial long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The tribunal therefore held that none of the three conditions amounted to a disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined the preliminary issue of whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010. It concluded he was not disabled; the judgment did not adjudicate the remaining complaints or award remedies. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 s.6
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 paragraph 2
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.