Mr N Al Ebadi v Home Office — 2026

This reserved preliminary judgment concerned disability status only. It considered whether Mr N Al Ebadi met the Equality Act 2010 definition of disability by reason of migraines, a neurodivergence (suspected ADHD), and anxiety during August 2023 to April 2025. It did not decide liability on the disability discrimination complaints in his three claims and made no remedy award.

The tribunal accepted that Mr Al Ebadi had a physical impairment of migraines, diagnosed in 2001. It accepted his account that attacks occurred every few months, with severe head pain and other symptoms requiring him to lie in bed, rest and sleep, followed by less acute pain for one or two days. These effects had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities and were long-term because they had persisted since adolescence and were likely to recur.

Mr Al Ebadi did not have a formal ADHD diagnosis. The tribunal noted that a diagnosis was not essential, that an occupational health screening indicated he was likely to have ADHD, and that a formal diagnostic and workplace assessment had been recommended. On the balance of probabilities, it found that he had a mental impairment consisting of a neurodivergence, described as suspected ADHD, throughout the relevant period.

The tribunal accepted difficulties with time management and organisation, including missing deadlines or suffering extreme stress when trying to meet them, severe time-blindness and poor planning, and speaking out of turn or interrupting others. It found that the daily occurrence of these effects took them beyond normal differences in the population, making them substantial and adverse. It also accepted that the effects were long-term because the neurodivergence and accepted symptoms had existed throughout the claimant's life. Other reported effects had limited supporting evidence and were not shown to be substantial.

Although the GP records contained a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder dated 16 May 2024, the tribunal found three discrete periods of stress or anxiety linked to workplace issues. Applying Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council, it concluded that the evidence showed reactive work-related stress rather than a mental impairment during the relevant period. It was also not satisfied that the effects attributed to anxiety arose from an Anxiety Disorder, rather than overlapping with the suspected ADHD, or that they were long-term. Mr Al Ebadi was therefore not disabled by way of anxiety during the relevant period.