Case 6016667/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Daniel Pearson v West Midlands Trains Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6016667/2025
- Decision date
- 26 August 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bansal Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Daniel Pearson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 26 June 2026, the tribunal found that Daniel Pearson was disabled by depression and anxiety for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during the relevant period from February 2024 onwards. Pearson remained employed as a train driver by West Midlands Trains Limited. His complaints of disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and harassment related to disability were not decided on their merits.
The respondent had conceded that Pearson was disabled by autism at the relevant time, but had not conceded knowledge of that impairment. After consulting counsel, Pearson withdrew reliance on PTSD as a disability. The remaining disability-status issue concerned recurrent depression and anxiety.
The tribunal accepted Pearson's evidence of recurring depression and low mood since 2005/2006, finding him consistent and persuasive. Medical records and the January 2024 Talking Therapies assessment supported the existence of depression and anxiety at the relevant time. The tribunal rejected the submission that these impairments were a reaction to back problems or workplace issues. It did not find the two Medigold reports persuasive on this issue because they were assessments specifically undertaken for return-to-work purposes.
The tribunal found adverse effects on sleep, appetite, household and personal chores, socialising, family interaction, leaving the house and completing tasks. It focused on activities Pearson could not do, or could do only with difficulty. The effects were more than minor or trivial and therefore substantial.
The long-term condition was also met. Given Pearson's history of depression and anxiety, the tribunal found that, as of February 2024, the effects were likely to continue for at least 12 months. It applied the principle that likely means could well happen and that recurring effects are treated as continuing where recurrence is likely. The July 2025 diagnosis supported the recurring pattern and continuing effects. No monetary remedy was determined.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary disability-status determination only. The tribunal found that depression and anxiety constituted a disability at the relevant time; it did not determine liability for the pleaded disability discrimination complaints. Autism was conceded as a disability, but knowledge was not conceded. The claimant withdrew reliance on PTSD as a disability, not the discrimination claim. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The pleaded failure-to-make-reasonable-adjustments complaint was not determined on its merits. This judgment decided the preliminary issue of disability status. | Other | Disability | — |
| Harassment | The pleaded harassment-related-to-disability complaint was not determined on its merits. This judgment decided the preliminary issue of disability status. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
14 references- Equality Act 2010, section 6: definition of disability
- Equality Act 2010, section 212: substantial means more than minor or trivial
- Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, paragraph 2: long-term and recurring effects
- Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1, paragraph 5: effect of treatment or corrective measures
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302: four-stage disability assessment
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 1694
- Morgan v Staffordshire University [2002] ICR 475
- J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052
- Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610
- SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37: likely means could well happen
- McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431
- Cruickshank v VAW Motorcast Ltd [2002] ICR 729: claimant's burden and relevant time
- Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability
- EHRC Code, Appendix 1
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.