Mr R Huskisson v The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constabulary and 1 other — 2017

On 26 July 2017 Employment Judge King determined a single preliminary issue in Mr R Huskisson’s case: whether his partial high-frequency hearing loss amounted to a disability within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The respondent accepted that he had a physical impairment and that it was long term; the dispute was whether the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Only the claimant gave oral evidence, and the tribunal also considered a joint medical report from Mr Parker.

The tribunal accepted that the hearing loss affected ordinary activities such as using the telephone, holding conversations with background noise, watching television, and socialising in pubs or clubs. It found that the claimant had developed coping strategies, including turning his right ear towards speakers, lip-reading, and using a radio earpiece that reduced ambient noise. Those were treated as changes to ordinary day-to-day behaviour rather than as specialised work tasks, and the tribunal concluded that the claimant’s impairment had more than a minor or trivial effect.

Applying section 212(1) of the 2010 Act and the authorities and guidance cited to it, including Paterson, Anwar, and Cummings, the tribunal held that the coping mechanisms did not reduce the effect of the impairment below the statutory threshold. It distinguished Cummings on the basis that the claimant’s adjustments were not all straightforward and could involve third parties. The tribunal therefore found that Mr Huskisson was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and directed that the case would continue to a further preliminary hearing for directions.