Case 3302830/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Toms, Counsel For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3302830/2018
- Decision date
- 11 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr N Toms, Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in which the tribunal decided whether the claimant was disabled and whether his claim could be amended. The claimant had started work with the respondent on 21 August 2017 as a Building Control Officer. The tribunal recorded that he had completed a pre-employment form saying he did not consider himself disabled, but it also recorded later evidence that he had described OCD, anxiety and difficulty coping with hot-desking, disordered workspaces and related stressors during September 2017.
The tribunal accepted the medical evidence from Dr Jonathan Ornstein and other records showing a long mental health history, including PTSD, depression, anxiety and obsessive compulsive symptoms. It found that the claimant had a mental impairment with an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities that was more than minor or trivial and long term. The tribunal said there was no need for a medically ascribed diagnosis, relied on the claimant's reported compulsive checking and distress in disordered environments, and held that he had a mental impairment for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010.
The tribunal refused the claimant's application to amend. It treated the additional factual allegations supporting the reasonable-adjustments complaint as new matters and also treated the proposed discrimination arising in consequence of disability claim under s.15 EqA as a new claim. Applying Selkent principles, it held that the application was late, that no good reason for the delay had been shown, and that it would be unjust to extend time as a matter of course. The tribunal also recorded prejudice to the respondent because an important witness had left.
The judgment did not determine the substantive reasonable-adjustments claim and made no award of compensation. It noted that a further preliminary hearing was listed to consider strike out and deposit applications in relation to the reasonable-adjustments claim, with a final hearing to follow only if necessary.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010, but it refused permission to amend the claim to add further factual allegations to the reasonable-adjustments case and to add a new claim of discrimination arising in consequence of disability. No final merits determination or remedy was made. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd
- Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd
- Ministry of Defence v Hay
- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore
- Robertson v Bexley Community Centre t/a Leisure Link
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd
- Abercrombie and Others v AGA Rangemaster Ltd
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.