Case 6015603/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Reed-Poulson v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015603/2024
- Decision date
- 1 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hastie Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Reed-Poulson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing to decide disability status under section 6 Equality Act 2010 and related preliminary matters. The claimant brought claims including failure to make reasonable adjustments related to IBS and BPPV/PPPD, harassment related to dyslexia, and harassment related to IBS. The respondent accepted that IBS and dyslexia fulfilled the Equality Act definition of disability, and accepted knowledge of dyslexia from August 2022 and disability by reason of IBS from 18 March 2024.
The Tribunal allowed an amendment to the harassment allegation listed in the September 2025 case management order, changing the impairment relied on for the 16 May 2024 harassment allegation from BPPV/PPPD to IBS. The Tribunal recorded that the amendment did not create a new claim, that the error had only been identified by solicitors on 22 April 2026, and that the balance of hardship favoured allowing the amendment.
On BPPV/PPPD, the Tribunal found that the claimant had the impairment, that symptoms were episodic and recurring, and that they had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The Tribunal accepted evidence including dizziness, spinning, nausea, low-level vomiting, caution about driving, hospitalisation in June 2024, difficulty standing, walking or moving safely during a flare-up, and visual disturbances affecting medication. It rejected the submission that the symptoms were little more than having a cold.
The Tribunal held that the long-term element was met. It found that BPPV had lasted 12 months by the time of the alleged failure to make reasonable adjustments concerning the August 2024 transfer request, and that BPPV/PPPD was likely to recur across a period of more than 12 months. The Tribunal therefore found that the claimant was disabled by reason of BPPV/PPPD, as well as by IBS and dyslexia. The claimant withdrew any arrears of pay claim, and that claim was dismissed on withdrawal. No remedy was awarded in this preliminary judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the Tribunal found that the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of BPPV/PPPD; the merits of the reasonable adjustments and harassment claims were not determined. | Other | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim for arrears of pay was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Selkent Bus Co Ltd v Moore 1996 ICR 836 EAT
- Vaughan v Modality Partnership 2021 ICR 535 EAT
- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2007] IRLR 763
- Paragraph 2 Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431, CA
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.