Case 2600528/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mills v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600528/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mills
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether the claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period of March 2020 to March 2021. The claimant relied on hypertension and anxiety/stress. The tribunal accepted that he had hypertension from January 2019, but found that he had not proved that the alleged headaches, insomnia, chest pains, palpitations, diarrhoea, reduced exercise, blurred vision, concentration or memory issues, or social effects were caused by hypertension or its treatment, or that hypertension would have had a substantial adverse effect but for treatment.
The tribunal found that the claimant experienced a stress-related illness from around the end of October 2020, with combined effects including low motivation or loss of interest in everyday activities, some difficulty with social interaction, reduced exercise, difficulty sleeping, and some loss of concentration. It found those combined effects were more than trivial from that point.
However, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not proved that, at any point during the relevant period, the substantial adverse effects of the stress-related illness were likely to last for 12 months. It therefore held that the claimant was not disabled under section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, and his disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a preliminary hearing the tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The judgment states that the disability discrimination claims, including failure to make reasonable adjustments and unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability, were not well founded and dismissed. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- Goodwin v Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- All Answers Ltd v W
- Ginn v Tesco Stores Ltd
- Morgan Stanley International v Posavec
- Parnaby v Leicester City Council
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.