Mr Jason Searle of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2021

This was a public preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant met the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 for the purposes of his disability discrimination claims. The tribunal applied the statutory definition, Schedule 1 on long-term effects, and the Goodwin four-question approach, with reference to the Guidance on the Definition of Disability 2011 and the authorities cited in the reasons, including SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle, McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College, Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant and Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd.

The tribunal found that the claimant had an episode of low mood and anxiety in late 2015 and early 2016, but that episode was short and there was no evidence of any adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It also found that the claimant had a further episode of low mood and anxiety in January 2019, with adverse effects on sleep, motivation, cooking, eating and leaving the house, but concluded that those effects lasted no more than about two months, did not last 12 months, and were not likely to recur as at 17 May 2019. The tribunal rejected the asthma point as a basis for disability in this case because there was no evidence of any effect on day-to-day activities from that impairment.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant suffered from low mood and anxiety, described in the medical records as mixed anxiety and depressive disorder, from 27 February 2020 onwards, with continuing medication and substantial adverse effects. It held that from 20 February 2020 onwards the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 of the 2010 Act because the effects were likely to last 12 months, or alternatively were likely to recur. The tribunal therefore dismissed disability discrimination allegations relating to the period before 20 February 2020, but allowed the allegations from that date onwards to proceed. It did not determine knowledge, liability, or remedy at this hearing.