Case 3202168/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G J Boswell v Office for National Statistics and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3202168/2023
- Decision date
- 15 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Illing Representation
- Venue
- East London
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr G J Boswell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis public preliminary hearing determined whether Mr G J Boswell was disabled at the relevant time for his disability discrimination claims. He relied on anxiety and depressive disorder. The Tribunal found that the relevant period was 13 August 2020 to 15 November 2023, and accepted that the Claimant had the mental impairment of anxiety and depressive disorder, first diagnosed on 20 August 2019 and re-diagnosed on 11 October 2021 and 10 August 2023. It also found that the impairment was long term.
The Tribunal reviewed GP records, fit notes, occupational health evidence, the Claimant's disability impact statement, and his oral evidence. It found that the GP records were consistent with stress at work as the reason for the Claimant's absence from work, and that the evidence of impact on normal day-to-day activities was limited. The Tribunal found that before the events at work in August 2020 the Claimant was coping at work and had not evidenced an impact on day-to-day life. After 13 August 2020, apart from absence from work, the only evidenced impact of the kind asserted was a short-lived reference to self-care in GP evidence in August 2023.
Applying authorities including J v DLA Piper and Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council, the Tribunal was satisfied that, but for workplace issues, the Claimant suffered little or no adverse effect from his impairment on day-to-day activities. It found that his absence from work and short period of lack of self-care were adverse reactions to life events, and that he was unwilling to return to work until workplace issues were resolved.
The Tribunal concluded that, at the relevant times, the Claimant was not a disabled person as defined by section 6 Equality Act 2010 because of anxiety and depressive disorder. The claims of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act and failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act were therefore dismissed. No remedy award was made or addressed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim of discrimination arising from disability under s.15 Equality Act dismissed after the Tribunal found the Claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | Claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments under ss.20 and 21 Equality Act dismissed after the Tribunal found the Claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant times. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1 Part 1
- Equality and Human Rights Commission Code of Practice on Employment Appendix 1
- All Answers Ltd v W
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
- J v DLA Piper
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council
- Mutombo-Mpania v Angard Staffing Solutions Ltd
- s.15 Equality Act
- ss.20 and 21 Equality Act
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.