Mr E Parnaby v Leicester City Council — 2018

The preliminary issue was whether Mr Parnaby was a disabled person at the material time for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. He relied on work-related stress, said to have begun in May 2016. The Tribunal accepted that he had an impairment and that it was substantial, but identified the real issue as whether it was long term.

The Tribunal refused an application made at the hearing to amend the disability relied on to include a depressive disorder. Applying Selkent, it found the amendment was made very late, that the Claimant had been legally represented throughout, and that the balance of hardship favoured the Respondent because it would be substantially prejudiced by having to deal with a different impairment.

On the evidence, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the effects described by the Claimant were reliably shown to relate to the pleaded condition of work-related stress at the relevant time. It found there were two distinct phases of work-related stress: one from April to September 2016 at the latest, which occupational health evidence said had resolved and was unlikely to recur, and another from January 2017. The Tribunal concluded that the impairment was not long term and that the Claimant did not meet the definition of a disabled person.