Case 8000215/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Loading page content.
TopCase 8000215/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000215/2023 Preliminary Hearing by Cloud Video Platform at Edinburgh on March 2024 Employment Judge: M A Macleod Mr J Harkins
This was a preliminary hearing on 13 March 2024 concerning whether Mr J Harkins was, and had been at the material time, a disabled person within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. He said he relied on sinusitis and on mental health difficulties described as depression and anxiety. The tribunal heard oral evidence from the claimant and considered medical records showing historical treatment for low mood, anxiety and depression, including a 2016 referral, fluoxetine in 2019, and GP notes in April and May 2023.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had suffered from depression in the past and may still have been affected by it at the time of the hearing, but it focused on the material period of employment from 11 April 2021 to 17 February 2023. It found that he did not require absence from work because of anxiety or depression during that period, did not attend his GP for help with mental health while employed, and was not prescribed anti-depressant medication during that employment. His own evidence was that he believed he could manage the condition and would seek help only when he was "near the edge".
On sinusitis, the tribunal found that the claimant had not proved on the balance of probabilities that the condition had a substantial adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities during employment. It noted that he was able to attend work and carry out his duties, and that there was no significant evidence that sinusitis had more than a minor impact. The tribunal also noted that his work absences during employment were related to Covid symptoms rather than to sinusitis or mental health.
Applying section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and citing McNicoll v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had not proved that either condition had a substantial and long-term adverse effect at the relevant time. It therefore held that he was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act. No remedy was recorded in this judgment, and the reasons do not record any substantive determination of the other claims said to be in issue.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary issue only: the tribunal held that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
The 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.
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.