Miss S Houlihan v C/o WW & J McClure Limited Represented by: Mr I Wheaten, Barrister,30 Instructed by: Mr A Philp, Solicitor Mr S Moore — 2021

At a preliminary hearing by Cloud Video Platform on 30 June and 1 July 2021 before Employment Judge S MacLean, the tribunal determined two issues only: whether Miss Houlihan was a disabled person between 21 October 2017 and 12 June 2018, and whether seven alleged disclosures were qualifying disclosures under section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The first respondent was in administration, but the hearing continued with consent.

Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010, section 212(1), Schedule 1, and the authorities of Goodwin, Pattison, Cruikshank and Saad, the tribunal accepted that the claimant had a mental impairment in the form of chronic and severe adjustment disorder with depressive, anxiety and panic symptoms from around 2016. It found that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, relying on evidence about sleep disturbance, appetite, cooking, driving, concentration, socialising and the claimant's ability to function at work and at home.

The tribunal also found that the effects were long-term. It accepted that the claimant's condition worsened through 2017, continued after the October 2017 disciplinary hearing, and persisted beyond dismissal in June 2018 despite CBT and medication. On that basis it held that the claimant was a disabled person during the relevant period, but the judgment did not decide the merits of any underlying Equality Act claim.

On the protected disclosure issue, the tribunal applied section 43B ERA 1996 together with Eiger Securities and Blackbay Ventures. It held that disclosure 1 about the supervision of the Richards case and the checking of Fact Finds, disclosure 5 about continuing the same working practices after the SSDT hearing, and disclosure 7 about the fact-finding process were disclosures of information which the claimant reasonably believed tended to show breaches of legal obligation and professional misconduct, and that the public interest test was met.

The tribunal rejected disclosures 2, 3, 4 and 6. It was not satisfied that the claimant had a reasonable belief that she had been the subject of a miscarriage of justice, that she had been improperly pressured into pleading guilty, that Mr McCreath's representation was professionally defective on the facts found, or that the second respondent had acted without entitlement in speaking to Mr McCreath. No monetary remedy was awarded because the judgment was limited to these preliminary issues and did not determine liability for discrimination, detriment or dismissal.