Mr Beresford Caps v Medivet Group Limited and 7 others — 2026

The preliminary hearing determined whether Mr Beresford Caps was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 because of depression, stress and anxiety between 30 June and 4 October 2023. His heart condition and type 2 diabetes had not been pleaded as impairments and were not before the tribunal. The tribunal concluded that he was not disabled by reason of his mental health during the relevant period and dismissed his disability discrimination claim.

The claimant's GP records first referred to a mental health issue on 30 June 2023, when he sought a certificate recording reactive depression after his suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Further certificates were issued, but the records contained no details of symptoms or their duration and recorded no medication. Letters from Dr Fatima and Dr Soori followed consultations after the relevant period and were based on information supplied by the claimant without access to his medical records.

The tribunal found that the claimant's November 2025 impact statement predominantly described his circumstances when it was written rather than during the relevant period. It also noted the absence of corroborating evidence and inconsistencies concerning when his reported depression, stress and anxiety began. On balance, the tribunal did not find his evidence sufficiently reliable and accurate to establish his condition and its effects at the relevant time.

The tribunal accepted that the disciplinary process caused the claimant stress and considered it possible that he had a mental impairment. It nevertheless distinguished a reaction to adverse life events from an impairment and found no cogent evidence that any impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to undertake normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal also found that the alleged effects were not shown to be long term. The first documented record was approximately three months before the termination of employment, and the tribunal found that the stress had existed for a couple of months at most. Applying the requirement that an effect could well last for at least 12 months, it found no reasonable basis for that inference given the reactive nature of the condition and the anticipated conclusion of the disciplinary process. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the judgment records that the claimant's other claims will proceed to hearing.