Mr H Edwards (Lay Representative) For the v Respondent — 2018

At this preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that Ms Corlis was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of the combined effects of sciatica/lower back pain, depression and stress-related anxiety, and incontinence. It accepted the evidence that those conditions were long-standing and had a substantial adverse effect on her day-to-day activities.

The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend the case to rely on dyslexia as a disability. It accepted that reading is a day-to-day activity and that the alleged effects were long-term, but held that there was no evidence of a mental impairment and that illiteracy alone was not enough on the material before it.

By contrast, the tribunal allowed the claimant's proposed amendment to add a claim of direct disability discrimination, treating it as a re-labelling of the existing disability case rather than a new and materially different cause of action. It also approved the pleaded PCP and reasonable adjustment amendments identified in the reasons.

The respondent's applications to strike out the claims and for a deposit order were refused. Applying the usual caution in fact-sensitive discrimination cases, and citing authorities including Anyanwu, Ezsias, Pillay and Hemdan, the tribunal considered the unfair dismissal and disability discrimination complaints arguable and not suitable for determination on a preliminary strike-out basis. The breach of contract claim had already been resolved and was dismissed upon withdrawal once the parties agreed the payment had been received.