Case 4104852/2017 · Employment Tribunal
(sitting alone)10 Mr P Docherty v Houston Bottling & C-Pack Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 4104852/2017
- Decision date
- 6 March 2018
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mary Kearns
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(sitting alone)10 Mr P Docherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 21 February 2018, the tribunal considered whether Mr Docherty was a disabled person for the purposes of his equality claims. It recorded that he had been employed by Houston Bottling & C-Pack Ltd as a team leader from 21 February 2011 until his dismissal on 1 August 2017. He had presented claims of unfair dismissal, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment, and the tribunal identified the relevant disability date for the section 15 claim as 1 August 2017 and, for the other discrimination claims, the period from 1 February 2014 to 1 August 2017.
The tribunal found that Mr Docherty had type 1 diabetes from February 2014 and depression from around the end of April 2017. It held that diabetes was a physical impairment with adverse effects on day-to-day activities, including weight loss, frequent urination, tiredness and irritability before diagnosis, and that the effects of treatment were to be disregarded when assessing disability. Applying Schedule 1 paragraph 5 of the Equality Act 2010, it concluded that without insulin the condition would likely produce hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia, with shaking, sweating and possible unconsciousness, and that diabetes was long-term because it was lifelong.
By contrast, the tribunal did not find that the depression satisfied the long-term requirement at the relevant time. Although it accepted the symptoms described, it concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the untreated condition was likely to last for at least 12 months as at 1 August 2017. The judgment therefore held that Mr Docherty was a disabled person at all relevant times by reason of diabetes only, and not by reason of depression. It also referred to the earlier case management orders and said a further preliminary hearing would be fixed for May or June 2018.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was a disabled person at all relevant times by reason of diabetes, but not by reason of depression. The substantive unfair dismissal and discrimination claims were not finally determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5 Equality Act 2010
- section 212(1) 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.