Bannan v Turners (Soham) Limited — 2021

This was a preliminary hearing on disability status and limitation in a claim presented by Christopher Bannan, who had worked for Turners (Soham) Ltd as an HGV driver from May 2012 until he resigned in September 2019. The tribunal accepted that he had osteoarthritis in his left hip, that it was a progressive condition, and that the relevant period ran from 31 July 2017 to the end of his employment.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's evidence that by July 2017 he had difficulty bending down, putting on socks and tying bootlaces, and that by 2018 he experienced pain and restriction when walking, standing and driving. It preferred his evidence to the occupational health report where there was conflict, and found that these difficulties amounted to an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. On the evidence of his current limitations, including difficulty walking for more than 20 minutes and standing for more than 10 minutes, the tribunal found that the impairment had become a substantial adverse effect and was long-term, so the claimant was disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010 and Schedule 1 paragraph 8.

On time bar, the claimant's disability discrimination schedule alleged acts from July 2017 through October 2018, plus two later events in January and February 2020. The tribunal held that the 2020 matters post-dated the ET1 and could not extend time. It found that the last relevant alleged act was 24 October 2018, so the disability discrimination complaint was out of time unless extended.

Applying the just and equitable test under section 123(1)(b), the tribunal considered the length of delay, the reasons given, the claimant's August 2019 SAR material, the October 2018 welfare meeting notes, the possible effect on evidence, and the prejudice to both sides. It accepted that the claimant was aware of the respondents' position earlier, but gave some weight to the later disclosure and to the circumstances he described. Balancing those factors, the tribunal extended time and allowed the disability discrimination complaint to proceed. It did not determine the merits of the discrimination or unfair dismissal claims at this hearing.