Mr S Clinton v Represented by Mrs P Clinton - Wife Dr J Webb and Dr J Sim T/A Quarryside Medical Practice — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge A Kemp to decide whether Mr Stewart Clinton was a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The claimant gave evidence; the respondent did not lead evidence but cross-examined him. The respondent argued that the claimant’s restless legs syndrome, periods of stress/anxiety/depression, and obsessional/anankastic personality traits each had only an insubstantial effect and that the stress/anxiety was not long-term.

The tribunal found that the claimant had several impairments. It accepted that he had restless legs syndrome, that he had periods of stress, anxiety and depression, and that he had diagnosed personality traits described by Dr Grew as compulsive or anankastic. It also rejected the submission that the claimant’s high blood pressure was irrelevant, finding that the GP material linked his stress-related symptoms with that condition. The tribunal accepted the claimant as a credible and reliable witness, and treated his manner of giving evidence as part of his conditions rather than an indication that he was not telling the truth.

Applying section 6 of the 2010 Act, the tribunal held that the cumulative effect of those impairments on day-to-day activities was substantial, meaning more than minor or trivial. It relied on the claimant’s difficulties with shopping, following instructions, reading and writing, concentration, and avoiding longer meals and longer driving because of the restless legs syndrome. In assessing substantial effect, the tribunal considered the effects together rather than separately and took the claimant’s medication into account as required by the statutory framework and guidance.

The tribunal also found that the effects were long-term. It accepted that the claimant’s impairments had persisted throughout the period of employment and had lasted, or were likely to last, for at least 12 months. It therefore concluded that Mr Clinton had discharged the burden of proving that he was a disabled person. The judgment records that the case would then continue to a further preliminary hearing for case management.