Case 3311402/2023 · Employment Tribunal
In person (with an interpreter: Polish) For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3311402/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
In person (with an interpreter: Polish) For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 18 June 2024, Employment Judge Alliott considered whether Mr Rafal Nowak was a disabled person for the purposes of s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of PTSD, a leg injury arising from an open fracture of his left tibia and fibula, or both together. The claimant had been employed as a Warehouse Operator and had brought claims of disability discrimination and unlawful deduction of wages. The tribunal also recorded that no application had been made to amend the claim to add race discrimination.
On the physical impairment, the tribunal accepted that the open fracture was a serious injury and that it had a substantial adverse effect in the short term on walking, bathing, dressing, preparing meals and shopping. However, the claimant was 33 at the relevant time and the tribunal found that the expectation then was that he would make a full recovery well within 12 months. It therefore held that the long-term limb of the disability definition in Schedule 1 was not met, and that he was not disabled by reason of the leg injury.
On the mental impairment issue, the tribunal found that PTSD was diagnosed in April 2024, but the relevant question was whether the claimant had the impairment, and substantial adverse effects from it, before 4 October 2023. It noted some GP entries in July and August 2023 referring to depression, mental health review, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, but found the medical evidence incomplete and the claimant's account insufficient to show a mental impairment with substantial adverse effects before the relevant date. The tribunal also found that, even if depression had amounted to an impairment, it was not likely to last more than 12 months.
The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not a disabled person at the relevant time by reason of either the leg injury or a mental impairment. No award was made at this hearing. The separate unlawful deduction of wages claim was not determined and was listed for a full merits hearing on 4 September 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination claim could not proceed. The issue list refers to the leg injury as occurring on 25 June 2023, while the findings section refers to 23 June 2023. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- EHRC disability guidance C3/C4
- IDS Handbook on disability
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.