Mr D Vinas v WPP 2005 Limited — 2026

The tribunal found that Mr D Vinas had not established that he was disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 during July to August 2024, when the alleged discrimination occurred. It therefore dismissed his claims against WPP 2005 Limited for direct discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments. Each depended on establishing disability status.

The tribunal accepted the claimant's ADHD diagnosis, made on 24 January 2025, and accepted that the assessment reflected genuine difficulties with concentration, attention, organisation, executive functioning and task management. It explained that diagnosis and symptoms alone did not establish statutory disability: the question concerned their actual effect on normal day-to-day activities during the relevant period. The claimant had subsequently been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, but had not sought permission to amend his claim to rely on that condition as a separate disability.

The claimant said the effects of ADHD and autism overlapped and were difficult to separate. The tribunal found inconsistencies between his impact statements, assessment report and oral evidence, including whether he missed deadlines or experienced stress through diligently meeting them. Even assuming the reported difficulties were attributable to ADHD, it was not persuaded that their effects were more than minor or trivial. His ability to maintain very senior employment and manage complex responsibilities formed part of the factual context, but was not determinative.

The tribunal found that the evidence about deadline stress, postponing tasks, preferring a quiet home working environment and discomfort on the London Underground did not establish substantial adverse effects. It also considered sensory overload, panic attacks and crowded environments. Although it accepted that the claimant experienced discomfort and anxiety, the evidence did not establish episodes with sufficient frequency, severity or functional impact during the relevant period. Preferences for routine, stress from change and draining social interactions did not establish the required threshold, individually or cumulatively.

The claimant bore the burden of proving disability on the balance of probabilities. Considering the evidence as a whole, the tribunal found that he had not established a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It therefore did not need to decide whether the effects were long-term. No monetary award was recorded.