Miss L Reynolds v Shisedio Group UK Ltd — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing to determine whether Miss L Reynolds had a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the period 1 September 2017 to 18 October 2018. The tribunal directed itself to the statutory definition, the recurring impairment provision in Schedule 1, Part 1, paragraph 2(2), and the authorities in Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth and Goodwin v Patent Office. The judge sat alone and the hearing was limited to that issue; the case was not finally determined and was listed to proceed to a full hearing.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a longstanding right knee condition arising from a 2003 netball injury that damaged the anterior cruciate ligament. It accepted that she had undergone nine operations in total, including surgery in August 2017 to remove metal debris and attempt further repair, and noted medical evidence of continued orthopaedic treatment during the material period, including references to a knee support, Naproxen, ongoing knee problems, and a consultant orthopaedic report from July 2018 describing degeneration and mechanical symptoms.

The tribunal accepted the claimant’s evidence that her knee condition caused ongoing pain, impaired mobility, clicking and locking, difficulty standing for long periods, difficulty walking longer distances, and problems with lifting, domestic tasks, and sleep. It found her evidence credible and accepted that she used painkillers during the relevant period, including Naproxen. The tribunal held that the impairment had an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and that the effect was substantial, meaning more than minor or trivial, throughout the relevant period.

The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Act at all material times. It added that, even if there had been periods when the effect was reduced, it would on the balance of probabilities have treated the condition as a recurring disability under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1, Part 1. No remedy was determined at this hearing because the matter was confined to the preliminary disability issue.