E.T. Z (WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4104188/2018 Held in Glasgow on August 201910 Employment Judge: J D Young Mr Christopher Lowe v Represented by: Ms L Neil – Solicitor GAR Trading Limited T/a Cashing In — 2019

This was a preliminary hearing in Mr Christopher Lowe’s case against GAR Trading Limited t/a Cashing In, limited to whether he satisfied the definition of a disabled person under s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, which the tribunal identified as 27 September 2017 to 24 January 2018. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, his father, a consultant surgeon and Mrs Joan Ross, and considered the medical consequences of necrotising fasciitis, emergency surgery, a transverse loop colostomy and the later parastomal hernia.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had a physical impairment from the onset of necrotising fasciitis in late September 2017 and a continuing physical impairment after surgery, including restricted mobility, pain, difficulty standing, bending, lifting, sitting and sleeping, and the effects of the colostomy and hernia. It also accepted that he had a mental impairment in the relevant period, finding low mood, social isolation and depression-like symptoms, and relying on the evidence about the likely psychological impact of the illness and recovery.

The tribunal found that the effects on normal day to day activities were substantial, not merely minor or trivial, and that the long-term requirement was met. In reaching that conclusion it applied the statutory definition in s.6 and Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010, treated "likely" as meaning could well happen, and accepted that further hernia-related surgery and recurrence could well happen. It referred to Patel v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle, Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall, JB v DLA Piper UK LLP, and the EHRC guidance and Employment Code.

The tribunal therefore held that Mr Lowe was a disabled person within the Equality Act 2010 for the relevant period. No monetary remedy was determined in this judgment, and the tribunal said a further preliminary hearing should be arranged to determine future procedure.