Mr M Peters v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) — 2025

This was a preliminary hearing on whether Mr M Peters was a disabled person by reason of complex post traumatic stress disorder during the relevant period, agreed as 4 October 2023 to 4 July 2024. The tribunal accepted that he had C-PTSD as an impairment, but the issue was whether it had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on day-to-day activities within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

The tribunal found that the claimant’s symptoms developed after the incident of 25 September 2023 and, more particularly, after the investigations announced on 4 and 5 October 2023 and the news broadcast on 23 October 2023. It accepted that by around 19 October 2023 he was experiencing panic attacks, hot flushes, emotionality and exhaustion, and that by the end of October 2023 to early January 2024 he was reliving past trauma, having regular nightmares, feeling on edge, isolated and struggling to get out of the house, with suicidal thoughts short of intent. The tribunal held that these effects on social functioning were more than minor or trivial and therefore substantial.

However, the tribunal found that the effects were not long term. It accepted occupational health and counselling evidence that the claimant improved markedly with treatment, including sertraline, EMDR, TB-CBT and residential group therapy. By early March 2024 his previous symptoms had improved greatly and by 26 April 2024 treatment had ended, with a closing summary recording that he could focus positively on his future and had no unresolved symptoms. The tribunal also rejected the claim that the effects were likely to last 12 months or recur, noting the absence of medical evidence to support long-term or recurrent effects and finding that the relevant effects had resolved by the end of April 2024.

The tribunal therefore held that Mr Peters was not disabled at the relevant time and dismissed all disability discrimination complaints. It expressly stated that the unfair dismissal complaint was unaffected by the judgment and could proceed to a final hearing.