Case 6006801/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Benjamin Lowe v Openreach Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006801/2024
- Decision date
- 31 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Volkmer Representation
- Venue
- Bodmin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Benjamin Lowe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing considered whether the Claimant was disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period from 13 January 2023 to the end of April 2024. The Claimant relied on ADHD, PTSD and anxiety, and gave evidence about effects on sleep, relationships, organisation, finances, memory, IT use and concentration.
The Tribunal found that ADHD and generalised anxiety and depression disorder were made out, and that PTSD was also established as a mental impairment despite the absence of a formal PTSD assessment. It found the pleaded impairments had substantial adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities and that those effects were long term.
The reserved judgment concluded that the Claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD, PTSD and anxiety at the relevant time. The judgment did not decide the substantive disability discrimination claims, any amendment application outcome, or any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment determined that the Claimant was disabled by reason of ADHD, PTSD and anxiety at the relevant time; it did not determine liability or remedy for the substantive discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- section 212 Equality Act 2010
- SCA Packaging Limited v Boyle
- Goodwin v The Patent Office
- J v DLA Piper
- Stedman v Haven Leisure
- All Answers
- Seccombe v Reed in Partnership Ltd
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.