Case 8000323/2023 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000323/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on November 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Aaron Hadley v Outdoor and Cycle Concepts Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000323/2023
- Decision date
- 5 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case No: 8000323/2023 (V) Held at Aberdeen on November 2023 Employment Judge N M Hosie Aaron Hadley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on whether Aaron Hadley met the statutory definition of disability for the purposes of his disability discrimination claim. The respondent did not accept that he was disabled. The tribunal heard evidence from Mr Hadley and considered medical records and an impact statement. It found him measured, consistent and credible, and accepted that he had sciatica first diagnosed in 2017, with recurring flare-ups and recorded sickness absences and GP consultations over several years.
The tribunal held that the condition amounted to a physical impairment with an adverse effect on day-to-day activities that was more than minor or trivial, and that the effect was long-term because it had continued intermittently since 2017 and was likely to recur. It also accepted that during serious flare-ups Mr Hadley could be unable to walk for days and that the condition affected ordinary activities, sleep and his active lifestyle. Applying s.6 Equality Act 2010, Schedule 1 and the Goodwin approach, the tribunal found that he was disabled at the relevant time and that it had jurisdiction to consider his disability discrimination claim. The merits of the discrimination claim and the separate unfair dismissal claim were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal decided that the claimant was a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 and that it had jurisdiction to consider the disability discrimination claim. It did not determine the merits of the discrimination claim or the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 para 2
- Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- Equality Act 2010 Guidance on Matters To Be Taken Into Account in Determining Questions Relating to the Definition of Disability (2011)
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.