Mr K Grundy v Loram UK Ltd — 2022

At this open preliminary hearing, the tribunal first dealt with the claimant's application to strike out the Response on the basis that the respondent had interfered with potential witnesses. It dismissed that application. The tribunal found the allegation was based on assumption rather than evidence, and it accepted the explanation that Mrs Robe had sought guidance about whether she could provide a statement and that the respondent's later letter to staff simply explained that employees were free to give or decline statements.

The main issue for determination was whether the claimant's dyslexia amounted to a disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time between March and September 2021. The respondent accepted that dyslexia was a lifelong mental impairment but disputed that it had a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The tribunal applied the approach in Goodwin, Woodrup, Cruickshank, Elliott, J v DLA Piper and Herry, and treated the question as whether the impairment caused a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

The tribunal found that the claimant's evidence overstated the effect of dyslexia and was inconsistent with the documents. It relied on the absence of contemporaneous complaints that dyslexia was affecting work or daily life, the common practice of proof-reading within the HR team, the claimant's later Rolls-Royce application in which he said he would not need adjustments, and the fact that his later quick-screen test was outside the material period. It concluded that the claimant was not disabled at the material time. The tribunal said the remaining claims were unaffected by that decision and were listed to proceed at a later hearing.