Case 2301357/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis — 2020
- Case reference
- 2301357/2019
- Decision date
- 27 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered whether the Claimant, a serving Detective Constable, was disabled by a mental impairment before 19 January 2019. The Respondent accepted disability from 19 January 2019 but disputed the earlier period. The Claimant relied on mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, work-related stress and grief reaction following the bereavement of a close friend.
The Tribunal found that from mid-August to October or November 2016 the Claimant had symptoms including insomnia, lack of concentration, breathlessness and tearfulness that had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including communication and concentration at work. It did not find sufficient evidence that those effects continued between November 2016 and July 2017, but found that the symptoms recurred by 30 August 2017 and continued to have the prescribed effect through to January 2018.
Applying the provisions on recurring effects, the Tribunal found that the Claimant had the same underlying mental impairment from August 2016 onwards and that the adverse effects recurred beyond 12 months after their first occurrence. It concluded that the effects became long-term on 15 August 2017, and that the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at all material times from that date.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The hearing determined the preliminary issue of whether the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material times. The substantive complaints of failure to make reasonable adjustments, discrimination arising from disability and indirect discrimination were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- statutory guidance C5 and C6
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
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.