Dr A Ashworth v The UK Offshore Energies Association Limited — 2022

This was an open preliminary hearing in which the tribunal determined disability status and whether the respondent was a qualifications body. The claimant said he was disabled because of dyslexia, and he also relied on near exophoria. The tribunal accepted that he had near exophoria at the relevant time, but it found that no evidence established dyslexia or any other additional impairment. It noted that the claimant had never been formally diagnosed with dyslexia or assessed by a psychologist, and that the spelling and grammar errors in the 13 November 2021 email were not enough to support such a finding.

Applying the statutory definition in s6 Equality Act 2010 and the approach in Goodwin v Patent Office, the tribunal held that the claimant had not shown a disability. It also considered Schedule 1 paragraph 5 and the guidance on the effect of corrective measures. On the claimant's own evidence, his middle-distance glasses resolved the adverse effect of the near exophoria, and he could use a computer with them. The tribunal therefore found that there was no remaining substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities when the corrective measures were taken into account.

The tribunal also rejected the respondent's rule 12 argument. It held that the earlier decision accepting the claim was a judgment, and that there had been no application for reconsideration or appeal, so it could not now entertain an application to dismiss the claim on that basis. Separately, it found that the respondent was not a qualifications body within s54 EqA 2010. Being on its register did not confer authorisation, qualification, recognition, registration, enrolment, approval or certification needed to practise the profession, but only facilitated commercial arrangements with organisations that chose to rely on the register.

Because the claimant was not a disabled person for s6 purposes and the respondent was not a qualifications body, the tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to consider the claim and dismissed it.