Miss S Hudson v Jack Petchey Foundation — 2022

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Feeny on 4 October 2022. The tribunal heard evidence about whether Miss Hudson was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010, from when that status began, and whether Jack Petchey Foundation Limited knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of any disability. The claimant had been seriously injured in a car accident on 9 April 2019, returned to work with adjustments, and by late 2019 still had pain and limitations affecting stairs, driving in congested traffic, lifting boxes, standing for long periods, dancing, and some exercise classes.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a physical impairment with substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities from 1 February 2020 onwards. It applied section 6, section 212(1) and Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010, the meaning of "likely" in Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd, and the disability guidance referred to in sections B7, C4 and D3. The tribunal accepted that as at 18 September 2019 it could not yet say that the effects were likely to last more than 12 months, but by 1 February 2020 the position had changed and the statutory definition was met.

On knowledge, the tribunal held that the respondent had knowledge of the claimant's disability from 1 February 2020 onwards. It relied on the respondent's awareness of the factual limitations, the adjustments that continued to be made for events, observations of the claimant's difficulties at work and at the Christmas party, and the absence of later evidence showing substantial recovery. The tribunal also referred to section 15(2) Equality Act 2010 and Gallop v Newport County Council when addressing the knowledge issue. This judgment did not determine the final merits of the pleaded unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, or victimisation complaints, beyond the preliminary findings on disability and knowledge.