Mr Daniel Holloway v Crawley Borough Council — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr Holloway’s anxiety and depression met the section 6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability at the times relevant to his discrimination complaints. The tribunal applied the statutory definition, placed the burden of proof on the claimant, and referred to the authorities it cited on the meaning of substantial and long-term adverse effect, including Goodwin v Patent Office, Morgan v Staffordshire University, J v DLA Piper UK LLP, McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College and SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Holloway experienced symptoms of low mood and anxiety in mid-March to early June 2020, triggered by his grandfather’s deteriorating health and death, the breakdown of his relationship and the COVID-19 lockdown. It accepted that those symptoms adversely affected his normal day-to-day activities for about three months, including sleep, coping and motivation, and that he undertook counselling in May 2020. However, it found that the effects were not long-term because from 8 June 2020 he returned on a phased basis, did not ask for an extension, did not seek further support from his manager, and the contemporaneous evidence did not show a continuing substantial adverse effect between June and October 2020.

The tribunal rejected the proposition that the claimant’s later parking-related issues showed a continuing disability during that period. It found that the claimant’s evidence about forgetfulness and concentration between June and October 2020 was vague, that the amended GP letter over-stated what the clinical notes showed, and that there was insufficient evidence of panic attacks or ongoing substantial impairment. It also found that the claimant’s symptoms around 26 October 2020 and 1 March 2021 were linked to the workplace investigation and dismissal, and amounted to a normal response to being investigated for alleged fraud and facing dismissal, rather than evidence of a long-term impairment likely to last or recur for 12 months.

On that basis, the tribunal held that Mr Holloway was not a disabled person for Equality Act purposes at the relevant times. The respondent’s separate argument under the Disability Regulations 2010 about an excluded condition was noted but not determined. The consequence of the disability finding was that the claims for discrimination arising from disability and failure to make reasonable adjustments were struck out; the unfair dismissal claim was not determined in this preliminary judgment.