Mr J Jenkins, counsel For the v Respondent — 2024

This was a preliminary issues judgment, not a merits decision on the underlying unfair dismissal and discrimination claims. The tribunal held that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of eczema. It accepted that his daily emollient and related treatment were measures within paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, and that without them the eczema would likely have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, including sleep, showering, dressing and socialising.

The tribunal rejected the argument that the claimant's histamine intolerance and other allergies, taken alone, satisfied the disability definition. It held that he could reasonably be expected to modify his diet and behaviour to reduce their effect, and therefore those conditions did not of themselves amount to a substantial adverse effect for the purposes of s.6 EqA. The judge referred to the medical material but treated the tribunal's own assessment of substantial effect as the issue to be decided.

The claimant withdrew his indirect age discrimination complaint at the hearing. The tribunal then refused his application to amend to add whistleblowing detriment, automatic unfair dismissal and victimisation. It held, applying Kilraine and the statutory wording of s.43B ERA, that the proposed whistleblowing allegations did not have sufficient factual content or specificity, that the victimisation pleading did not identify a proper protected act, and that the amendments would add time and complexity. The judgment also noted that the proposed new claims would face time-limit difficulties if pursued later.