Self-representing For the v Respondent — 2024

The tribunal considered whether Mr Knowles was disabled within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, April to September 2022, relying on asthma aggravated by hay fever. It accepted that he had asthma, but the question was whether the impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities during that period.

The judge reviewed the statutory definition, Schedule 1 paragraphs 1, 2 and 5, the Equality Act 2010 Disability Regulations 2010 reg. 4 on seasonal allergic rhinitis, and the 2011 Guidance. The tribunal noted the argument about whether hay fever treatment should be ignored or whether only the actual aggravating effects of hay fever could be taken into account, and concluded that the regular treatment shown by the evidence was directed to hay fever rather than asthma and was therefore not ignored under Sch.1 para.5.

On the facts, the tribunal found that the evidence of asthma-related sleep disturbance was limited, that the claimant experienced asthma-related breathing difficulties only on a few days each year before 2023, and that the medical records did not show regular unresolved asthma consultations or frequent use of asthma treatment needing to be disregarded. It also found that the claimant’s avoidance of going out was overwhelmingly explained by hay fever and that any protective steps taken to reduce asthma symptoms were only to a minor extent and were trivial in impact.

The tribunal held that evidence about reduced physical exertion largely post-dated the relevant period and was not material to the issue it had to decide. It concluded that it was not until June 2023 that asthma had a significant adverse effect on Mr Knowles’s ability to carry out day-to-day activities, even taking account of the effect of hay fever, and therefore he was not disabled during April to September 2022. The complaint of disability discrimination was dismissed.