Case 3301826/2020 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 3301826/2020
- Decision date
- 22 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis hearing was listed to determine whether Mr Patrick Ring was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal recorded that the respondent accepted that he was disabled throughout his employment by reason of type 1 diabetes, and it confirmed that finding. No remedy was determined because the judgment dealt only with preliminary disability issues.
The tribunal held that Mr Ring became disabled by reason of the tremor in his right hand with effect from 7 February 2019. It accepted that, by that date, the tremor had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities, including writing, doing up buttons, carrying or pouring drinks, serving himself food, and aspects of personal care. The tribunal also found that the effect was long-term within Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 because the tremor had already lasted several months, was getting worse, and the medical evidence at the time pointed to a condition likely to last at least 12 months.
The tribunal did not find that Mr Ring was disabled by reason of depression and/or anxiety during his employment. It accepted that he experienced a mental health crisis in mid-February 2019 and noted later references in medical letters to low mood and an underlying mood disorder, as well as a GP letter referring to anxiety and depression. However, it concluded that there was insufficient evidence that any mental impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities outside the crisis period itself, aside from a further short period in November 2019. The tribunal noted the absence of evidence of ongoing inability to work because of anxiety or depression, the lack of GP treatment evidence, and Mr Ring's evidence that he had not taken medication for depression or anxiety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary disability-status issue under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of type 1 diabetes throughout his employment. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Preliminary disability-status issue under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the claimant became a disabled person by reason of the tremor in his right hand with effect from 7 February 2019. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Preliminary disability-status issue under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was not satisfied that depression and/or anxiety had a substantial adverse effect on the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities during employment, apart from the brief crisis period described in the reasons. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Equality Act 2010 section 6
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1) Equality Act 2010
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.