Case 4102766/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Laura McGowan v British Broadcasting Corporation — 2026
- Case reference
- 4102766/2025
- Decision date
- 23 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge McFatridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Laura McGowan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned the sole preliminary issue of whether the claimant was disabled at the relevant time for her disability discrimination claim. The relevant period was treated as October 2023 to 26 February 2025. The claimant relied on low mental health and anxiety, having previously referred to work-related stress and a learning disability. She gave evidence about low mood, interrupted sleep, concentration difficulties, isolation in social situations, and coping strategies including support from friends and family and going to the gym.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant was genuinely describing how she felt, but found the evidence about the effect on normal day-to-day activities was very limited and lacked detail. The GP letter referred to presentations since 2016 relating to stress, anxiety and low mood, mainly in reaction to adverse life events, with propranolol prescribed as required between 2017 and 2020 and an online CBT course in 2016.
The tribunal found that the evidence did not support a long-term underlying condition or a long-term substantial adverse effect. It also found that the claimant's current coping strategies were self-intervention and did not assist her under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1. The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not disabled in terms of the legislation at the relevant time, and dismissed the disability discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | At a preliminary hearing the tribunal decided the claimant was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time, so the disability discrimination claims were dismissed. Other claims mentioned in the introduction were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College
- Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP
- Hubert v OneCall 24
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.