Mr R Magara, solicitor For the v Respondent — 2023

This was a preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The claimant said he had autism and relied on a disability impact statement describing social, sensory, communication and sleep-related symptoms. The respondent disputed that he was disabled at any material time, which the tribunal identified as March 2022 to January 2023.

The tribunal reviewed the medical records in detail. It accepted that the claimant had early childhood speech and language difficulties linked to serious hearing problems, and that he was described in the early 2000s as having semantic pragmatic language disorder, attention deficit, and related social and behavioural difficulties. It found that by mid to late 2005 those difficulties had been treated and appeared to have been resolved, and that the records did not show a diagnosis of autism. The 2012 GP reference to autism was treated as a reference back to the earlier history and a referral about poor sleep, not as evidence of a current autistic impairment.

The tribunal did not accept the claimant's evidence that the symptoms in his disability impact statement had affected him throughout his life. It found the statement too general and not personalised to his own circumstances, and noted that he did not give a witness statement or provide examples in the material period. Although he said he was anxious in large groups, disliked being shouted at, sometimes had panic-like discomfort, preferred his own company, and thought he needed step-by-step instructions, the tribunal found that this did not establish a mental impairment in the relevant period or an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities that was substantial and long-term.

Applying s.6 Equality Act 2010 and the four-stage approach in Goodwin v Patent Office, with reference to Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd and Morgan v Staffordshire University, the tribunal held that the claimant had not proved disability on the balance of probabilities. As a result, all disability-based claims before it were dismissed. The judgment did not record any monetary award or split remedy because no claim succeeded at this stage.