Case 2501004/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S. Crow v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs — 2026
- Case reference
- 2501004/2024
- Decision date
- 5 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S. Crow
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal determined preliminary issues about disability status for a disability discrimination claim. It found that, between 29 August 2023 and 12 June 2024, the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of diplopia. The tribunal found that her vision remained substantially impaired in normal day-to-day activities even with spectacles or contact lenses.
The tribunal also considered anxiety and/or depression. It found that the claimant was not disabled by reason of anxiety and/or depression between 29 August 2023 and 28 April 2024, but was disabled from 29 April 2024, which the respondent had conceded. The tribunal concluded that, before 29 April 2024, the evidence did not show that the substantial adverse effects were long-term or likely to last at least 12 months.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing decision on whether the claimant was disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times; the merits of the discrimination allegations were not determined in the provided text. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)
- PP v Trustees of Leicester Grammar School 2014 UKUT 520
- paragraph C4 of the Guidance
- McKechnie Plastic Components v Grant 0284/08
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.