Mr J Hackney v James Glancy Design Limited — 2022

This judgment determined a preliminary issue on disability in a case that had also included claims of unfair dismissal, breach of contract and statutory redundancy payment. The tribunal accepted that Mr Hackney had a physical impairment throughout the relevant period, described as mechanical low back pain and sciatica, but held that the question was whether that impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that during the relevant period, June 2018 to 29 February 2020, the condition caused pain and occasional flare-ups but did not substantially worsen. It relied on evidence that Mr Hackney lived alone, managed his personal care, shopping, cooking and washing, tended sixteen birds, drove about 300 miles a week, carried out work involving physical and sedentary tasks, and undertook active DIY projects and snowboarding holidays. The tribunal also noted Mr O’Dowd’s evidence and that medication did not alter the underlying diagnosis or level of restriction.

The tribunal rejected parts of Mr Hackney’s evidence that his pain was constant and that he had significant difficulty sleeping, using the toilet at work or brushing his teeth. It accepted that he was in pain, but concluded that the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. It therefore held that he was not disabled at the relevant time and dismissed the disability discrimination claim. The judgment records that, because the disability threshold was not met, the discrimination claim could not proceed.