Ms Niamh Millar v NHS England — 2026

The tribunal unanimously dismissed Niamh Millar's claims against NHS England for discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments and victimisation. An earlier hearing had established disability through depression, anxiety, ADHD and panic disorder between July 2023 and 20 June 2024. The tribunal found that NHS England knew or ought reasonably to have known of disability from mid-September 2023, following receipt of an occupational health report. It found no earlier actual or constructive knowledge: the information then available indicated distress arising from a prolonged workplace dispute rather than a long-term substantial impairment.

The section 15 claim centred on the Social Value Lead suitability discussion on 16 October 2023, subsequent feedback and alleged lack of HR contact. The tribunal preferred Daniel Hancock's account of the meeting, supported by similar views Millar had expressed in writing about the programme. It accepted that communication style and behaviour could arise from ADHD, but found insufficient evidence that the behaviour relied upon in this case did so. The diagnosis established ADHD but did not resolve that separate question of causation; the tribunal expressly recognised that expert evidence was not required. It found that the feedback reflected the assessment of the meeting and that alleged isolation or lack of response was not shown to be linked to the asserted disability-related behaviour.

The tribunal found that the Social Value Lead discussions were conditional and exploratory, with suitability and a possible trial period still to be assessed. There had been no unconditional offer, and Millar had reserved her position pending discussion with a prospective manager. Alternatively, even if the required causal link to ADHD had been established, the tribunal would have found the decision not to progress the appointment proportionate, given the seniority of the role and the need for effective stakeholder engagement and professional judgment.

The reasonable adjustments claims concerned return-to-work arrangements, grievance handling and performance expectations. The tribunal found that the first two alleged provisions, criteria or practices were insufficiently defined and, in any event, that disability-related substantial disadvantage had not been established. It accepted that grievance handling was prolonged, fragmented and unsatisfactory, but found no proof that disability caused the identified disadvantage to arise to a materially greater degree. For performance expectations, it found evidence of planned integration and support after a manager was allocated in November 2023, executive coaching from a provider experienced in neurodiversity, and autonomy to take breaks. The communication disputes concerned decisions and outcomes rather than an established barrier to understanding. It also found that NHS England could not reasonably have foreseen a disability-related substantial disadvantage in the October suitability meeting on the information then available.