Ms R Daniel v London General Transport Services Limited t/a Go Ahead London — 2026

At a public preliminary hearing, the Tribunal determined whether Ms Daniel was disabled within s.6 Equality Act 2010 by reason of back/shoulder injury between 18 January and 6 December 2024. The respondent conceded that she was disabled by reason of migraine throughout the relevant period, so her migraine-based claims for indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments were left to proceed to a final hearing.

The Tribunal found that the 18 January 2024 road traffic accident caused a whiplash injury affecting Ms Daniel's neck, chest wall, right shoulder, and mid-to-lower back. It had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities until at least her return to work on 13 April 2024 and probably until or shortly before her final physiotherapy session on 7 May 2024. The evidence did not establish that a substantial adverse effect continued beyond then; the Tribunal relied in particular on her return to usual duties, the absence of further physiotherapy, the medical evidence, and the lack of subsequent medical references to continuing problems from that accident.

The Tribunal also found that the 26 June 2024 accident caused separate whiplash injuries affecting the neck, upper and mid back, left shoulder, and forearm. These had a substantial adverse effect during July and, on the balance of probabilities, while Ms Daniel received physiotherapy up to 19 November 2024. There was insufficient evidence that a substantial adverse effect continued after physiotherapy ended, and the medico-legal evidence anticipated full recovery within nine months of the June accident.

Even if the periods of substantial adverse effect were amalgamated, they lasted for less than 12 months, and the evidence did not establish that the effect was likely to recur. The Tribunal alternatively found that the two injuries were separate and were not connected in the manner considered in Patel v Oldham Borough Council; neither injury was shown at the relevant time to have effects likely to last at least 12 months. Applying the meaning of “likely” as “could well happen” from Boyle v SCA Packaging, and assessing the position at the relevant time as required by McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College, the Tribunal held that Ms Daniel was not disabled by reason of the back/shoulder injuries.

The back/shoulder-injury aspects of the indirect discrimination and reasonable-adjustments claims were therefore dismissed. No remedy was awarded or determined in this preliminary judgment. The migraine-based claims remain for determination at a final hearing.