Case 2501315/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matthew Tough v Commissioners for HM Revenue & Customs — 2018
- Case reference
- 2501315/2018
- Decision date
- 6 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beever
- Venue
- North Shields
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matthew Tough
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing was listed to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by 18 June 2018. The claimant relied on depression and anxiety, with symptoms beginning after an accumulation of personal events from late March 2018 and continuing through his sickness absence, return to work, dismissal process and appeal.
The tribunal found that from 5 April 2018 the claimant had significant concentration and memory problems and substantial adverse effects. It also found, on balance and having regard to the GP records, that by 18 June 2018 he had an impairment in that he was suffering from depression.
The tribunal concluded that the long-term condition was not met. By 18 June 2018 the adverse effects had lasted less than three months, there was no prior history of illness, and there was no medical evidence or opinion supporting a conclusion that the effects were likely to last at least 12 months or were likely to recur. As all claims were agreed to be premised on the claimant being disabled, the claims were struck out and dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal decided at a preliminary hearing that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 at the material date of 18 June 2018. It recorded that all causes of action relied on were premised on disability and were therefore struck out and dismissed. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the termination and expressly makes no findings about the justification for dismissal. It records that all claims in the proceedings were struck out and dismissed following the disability-status finding. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- J v DLA Piper [2010] ICR 1052
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd [2013] ICR 591
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] IRLR 227
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.