Case 2601318/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. R Davies v Planning Solutions — 2024
- Case reference
- 2601318/2023
- Decision date
- 8 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heathcote
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. R Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant had a disability within the meaning of section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 during the agreed relevant period of 26 March 2021 to 6 June 2023. The alleged impairments were dyslexia, probable ADHD and chronic anxiety, with some other conditions mentioned but not relied on in the proceedings.
The tribunal accepted that dyslexia and stated learning difficulties were long-term, but found that the claimant had not shown a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It also accepted that the claimant experienced anxiety, including heightened anxiety from February 2023, but found insufficient evidence that it had a substantial adverse effect, that any such heightened effect was long-term, or what the deduced effect would have been without medication.
Accordingly, the tribunal found that the claimant was not disabled at the material time. His complaints of unlawful disability discrimination were dismissed, while the remaining claims were stated to be unaffected by the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment was a public preliminary hearing on whether the claimant was disabled within section 6 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period. The tribunal found he was not disabled at the material time and dismissed the unlawful disability discrimination complaints. Other claims were stated to be unaffected by this decision. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
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.