Case 2600959/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Dr J Kerr (counsel) For the v Mr P Sands (Solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 2600959/2022
- Decision date
- 14 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge N Wilson Appearances
- Venue
- Nottingham Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr J Kerr (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary issue hearing on whether the claimant had a disability for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on anxiety and stress. The tribunal accepted that he had periods in 2014 and 2016 when he suffered a mental impairment connected to difficulties with a patient at work, and that those periods had a substantial effect while he was off work, but it found the effects were limited to those discrete episodes and did not continue for at least 12 months.
The tribunal found there was no sufficient evidence of a continuing substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities between November 2014 and March 2016, and it treated the March 2016 attendance with his GP as an isolated incident. It also found that the claimant had not given clear evidence of day-to-day functional impact outside sickness absence, and that the medical records did not show ongoing attendance for stress or anxiety during that interval.
As to 2021, the tribunal accepted that the claimant was stressed by the COVID-19 vaccination requirement and related workplace rules, and the occupational health report recorded significant stress with components of anxiety and mild depression. However, it was not persuaded that this amounted to a long-term substantial adverse effect after his employment ended on 21 December 2021, and it found the September to December 2021 stress was tied to his reaction to mandatory vaccination rather than established disability. The disability discrimination claim was therefore dismissed, and the judgment records that the ordinary unfair dismissal claim survived.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant had not established a disability within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discriminatory act. The ordinary unfair dismissal claim remained live. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- s.212 Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office four-stage approach
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited four questions
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Igweike v TSB Bank plc
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.