Case 3331333/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Ball, Counsel For the v Ms H Royle, Solicitor (1st) Mr E Nuttman, Solicitor (2nd) — 2021
- Case reference
- 3331333/2018
- Decision date
- 4 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bedeau Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Ball, Counsel For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing limited to whether Ms Amanda Verboort was, at all material times, a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. Arriva London North Ltd conceded disability on 9 June 2020, but London Sovereign Ltd did not. The tribunal also noted that the substantive case remained listed for a later final hearing and that the claimant intended to continue her discrimination claim against LSL.
On obstructive sleep apnoea, the tribunal accepted the medical evidence from Dr Pillai and Professor Stradling. It found that the claimant had long-term sleep apnoea, was treated with CPAP, and without the device would become tired, have impaired concentration and memory, and would likely be unable to drive. Those effects were more than minor or trivial, and the condition was held to be long-term and, on the evidence, lifelong.
On hearing loss, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had long-term left-ear deafness or hearing loss, supported by audiology and ENT evidence and by the family history referred to in the evidence. It found that she wore a hearing aid to hear passengers and that, without it, she would need to lip read or move close to hear what was being said. Applying the Equality Act guidance on hearing impairment and hearing aids, the tribunal held that this was also a physical impairment with a substantial and long-term adverse effect. It therefore concluded that the claimant was a disabled person at all material times. The hearing did not determine liability on the substantive discrimination claims or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal determined that the claimant was a disabled person for Equality Act 2010 purposes, in respect of obstructive sleep apnoea and left-ear hearing loss. No substantive discrimination liability or remedy was decided at this hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- s.212(1) Equality Act 2010
- s.6(5) Equality Act 2010 guidance
- EHRC Employment: Statutory Code of Practice para 8
- Guidance B14 (hearing impairment and hearing aids)
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] IRLR 24
- Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd [2016] IRLR 273
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.