Mr S Hilton-Brown v TJ Hall Limited — 2022

Mr Hilton-Brown brought three disability-related claims: discrimination arising from disability under section 15, failure to make reasonable adjustments under sections 20 and 21, and harassment related to disability under section 26. At this preliminary hearing, before Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone, the tribunal considered whether Mr Hilton-Brown was disabled by dyspraxia and whether deposit orders should be made in relation to allegations said to depend on depression. The respondent conceded that he was disabled because of depression at the relevant times, but disputed dyspraxia.

The tribunal found that Mr Hilton-Brown had not proved on the balance of probabilities that he had dyspraxia. It considered the 2007 New College Nottingham assessment, the later GP letters written for the proceedings, and the GP notes over a number of years. The judge held that the assessment by Ms Gurney did not amount to a diagnosis of dyspraxia, but only indicated features suggestive of it. The later GP letters were treated as over-stating what the assessment showed and as relying on the claimant's own account. The GP notes were said to show repeated references to depression, tiredness and anxiety, with dyspraxia only mentioned later and in passing by the claimant himself.

The tribunal also held that, even if dyspraxia had been established, the evidence did not show a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It accepted that Mr Hilton-Brown had some difficulties with learning new skills, driving, balance, processing information, following instructions and social interaction, but found these impacts to be minor or trivial on the evidence before it. The judge noted that the claimant had obtained a full UK driving licence, used practical adjustments such as notes and Google Maps, and had not reported the alleged dyspraxia-related problems to his doctors in a way that supported the case. The tribunal considered that the main recurring symptoms, including tiredness and generalised anxiety, were more consistent with depression than with dyspraxia.

On the deposit application, the tribunal held that the allegations based on depression had little reasonable prospect of success because the claim form did not allege that the respondent knew or ought to have known of depression, nor that the harassment allegation was related to depression. The judge also took into account the claimant's financial position and concluded that deposits of £500 per allegation were proportionate. The order was therefore made in the total sum of £1,500, but the merits of the underlying claims were not finally determined at this hearing.