Case 6001698/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Y Kose v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6001698/2024
- Decision date
- 30 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Y Kose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Kose alleged that Amazon UK Services Limited subjected him to acts of disability discrimination between 5 December 2023 and 4 January 2024. He relied on panic attacks, anxiety and depression as mental impairments. The preliminary hearing was confined to whether he was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged treatment.
Mr Kose attended remotely from the Netherlands and accepted that he could not give evidence from there. The Tribunal therefore attached very little weight to his witness statement and impact statement. It found little consistency between the impact statement and the medical records and treated the medical records as the more credible evidence of the effects of the asserted impairments on normal day-to-day activities.
The Tribunal found that the medical evidence from October 2023 to January 2024 showed relatively minor instances of panic attacks, ameliorated by breathing exercises and improving by January 2024. It found that the symptoms appeared to have been brought on by stressful life events, including a job interview, a visa application and the respondent's absence-management procedure. The Tribunal also found that claimed effects including loss of appetite, social withdrawal and difficulties with cleaning and personal care were not recorded in the medical evidence and were mostly directly contradicted by it.
The Tribunal concluded that, at the time of the alleged discrimination, the effect of any impairment had neither lasted nor been likely to last for at least 12 months and did not have a substantial, long-term adverse effect on Mr Kose's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. He therefore did not satisfy the statutory definition of disability. The Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the disability discrimination claims and dismissed them in their entirety without determining the substantive allegations or making a monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claims were dismissed in their entirety at a public preliminary hearing because the claimant did not meet the definition of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the time of the alleged discriminatory treatment. The substantive allegations were therefore not determined. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
10 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010 disability test
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP UKEAT/0263/09
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council UKEAT/0100/16 and UKEAT/0101/16
- Tesco Stores Ltd v Tennant UKEAT/0167/19
- Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd EA-2019-000478
- Schedule 1 paragraph 5(1) Equality Act 2010
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance paragraph C3: likely means could well happen
- All Answers Ltd v W [2021] EWCA Civ 606
- Schedule 1 paragraph 2(2) Equality Act 2010
- Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall [2008] EWCA Civ 4
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.