Case 4107252/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Spence v West Lothian Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 4107252/2020
- Decision date
- 11 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Sutherland
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Spence
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant was disabled during the agreed relevant period from 27 November 2017 to 24 September 2020. The claimant relied on the physical impairment of labyrinthitis. The tribunal found that he had acute episodes before the relevant period, including in April and August 2017, but no acute episodes of labyrinthitis during the relevant period, although he had two single-day self-declared absences for labyrinthitis or vertigo and intermittent short-lived dizziness.
The tribunal found that the intermittent dizziness since 2017 was generally momentary, mainly in the morning, and did not affect the claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. It also found there was no medical evidence that he had labyrinthitis as a permanent condition during the relevant period, and that the medical evidence made mild BPPV a more likely cause of the momentary dizziness.
For completeness, the tribunal accepted that intermittent momentary dizziness had recurred for at least 12 months and was likely to continue, but found that it had no substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It also found no evidence that an acute episode was likely to recur during the relevant period. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period and dismissed the disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined at an open preliminary hearing that the claimant was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period, so the disability discrimination claim could not proceed and was dismissed. The unfair dismissal complaint was noted as presented but was not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Guidance on the definition of Disability (2011)
- EHRC Code of Practice on Employment (2011)
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP 2010 ICR 1052, EAT
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2(1) Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2(2) Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle 2009 UKHL 37
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1694
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.