Mr Brackstone v Beck Interiors Limited — 2020

This was an open preliminary hearing on a single issue: whether Mr Brackstone was disabled at the material time under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The parties agreed that he had a diagnosis of general anxiety disorder, and the tribunal identified the material date as 1 August 2018, alternatively a date not earlier than 13 July 2018. The hearing did not determine whether there had been an actual or constructive dismissal, and no final merits issues were decided.

The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Brackstone, his daughter, Dr Kimber-Rogal and Dr Dhar, and considered the claimant's disability impact statement, medical reports, GP records and related documents. It accepted that Mr Brackstone had longstanding anxiety symptoms treated with Duloxetine and therapy from February 2018. The tribunal accepted evidence that his condition affected sleep, caused constant worry, compulsive checking, withdrawal and insularity, and produced physical symptoms such as sweating, hot flushes, nausea and stomach problems.

The tribunal preferred the overall support provided by Dr Kimber-Rogal's long-standing involvement with the claimant and found her evidence genuinely and professionally given. It accepted the claimant's and his daughter's evidence about the impact of the condition and found that Dr Dhar's report was less useful on the material issue because it was formed after the employment had ended and the tribunal was not satisfied that he had the right reference period in mind. Applying the statutory definition, the tribunal held that the effects were more than minor or trivial and that the claimant's GAD had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

On that basis, the tribunal concluded that Mr Brackstone was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. It referred to the statutory provisions, the disability guidance, Goodwin v Patent Office and Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd in reaching that conclusion. The result was that the disability discrimination claim(s) were allowed to proceed to a further preliminary hearing and the listed full hearing remained in place.