Case 4103575/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4103575/2020 Preliminary Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on and June 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr G Nash v Argyll & Bute Council — 2021
- Case reference
- 4103575/2020
- Decision date
- 15 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wiseman
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)5 Case No: 4103575/2020 Preliminary Hearing Held by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) on and June 2021 Employment Judge W A Meiklejohn Mr G Nash
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period of 7 February 2020 to 3 September 2020. The claimant relied on evidence about stress-related mental health symptoms, including disturbed sleep, low mood and motivation, reduced participation in family and social activities, concentration difficulties, and effects on home life. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, his wife, his former line manager and his father, and considered GP letters, fit notes and occupational health reports.
The tribunal found all witnesses credible, with particular reliance on the claimant's and Mrs Nash's evidence about changes from around March 2019. It found that the claimant had a mental impairment at the relevant time and that the impairment had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities, including social interaction, concentration, sleeping, and activities such as cycling and playing football with his son.
The tribunal found the adverse effects were more than minor or trivial and that the long-term requirement was met. It concluded that the claimant had first come within the statutory definition, apart from the long-term element, in March 2019; by March 2020 the effects had lasted at least 12 months, and as at 7 February 2020 it could well happen that they would last at least 12 months. The claimant was therefore disabled within section 6(1) EqA throughout the relevant period.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Open preliminary hearing determined only that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6(1) Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time for the purpose of his unlawful discrimination complaints; the merits of the discrimination complaints were not determined in this judgment. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (2011)
- Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd UKEAT/0316/12
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council UKEAT/0069/19
- J v DLA Piper UKEAT/0263/09
- SCA Packaging v Boyle [2009] UK 37
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.