Case 4103870/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Ross Swinburne v Lerwick Engineering and Fabrication Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4103870/2018
- Decision date
- 10 August 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lucy Wiseman
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Ross Swinburne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal decided that Mr Ross Swinburne was a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that he had been so disabled throughout his employment with Lerwick Engineering and Fabrication Ltd. The tribunal accepted evidence that he had Schizo Affective Disorder (Bipolar type), diagnosed in 2013/2014, with longstanding anxiety, paranoia and hypervigilance, and that he had been awarded PIP because of the condition.
The respondent accepted that he had a mental impairment that was long term, but argued that the effect on normal day-to-day activities was not substantial, relying in part on an occupational health questionnaire in which he said he could do normal activities outside work. The tribunal preferred the claimant's evidence and that of Ms Hughes, found that the impairment caused a substantial adverse effect on sleep, hygiene, social interaction, shopping, travel and other daily activities, and held that coping strategies and medication did not prevent the effect from meeting the statutory definition when the effects of treatment were disregarded. No financial remedy was determined because the hearing was confined to disability status.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and that he had been so disabled throughout his employment. | Upheld | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 6 Equality Act 2010
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.