Ms J Reid v Park’s of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited — 2026

At a preliminary hearing on 1 July 2026, the tribunal found that Ms J Reid had not established that she was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 on 9 October 2025. It dismissed her complaints against Park’s of Hamilton (Townhead Garage) Limited of discrimination arising from disability and failure to make a reasonable adjustment. Those complaints concerned the respondent’s refusal to allow her chosen companion to attend a grievance meeting on that date.

Ms Reid’s employment as a business manager transferred to the respondent on 20 June 2025. She first experienced the anxiety symptoms in August 2025 and went off sick on 17 September. Her symptoms included a racing heart, feeling on edge, difficulty concentrating and disrupted sleep. They also affected her social activities. She received propranolol and reported some improvement, although the symptoms continued. The respondent accepted that she had a mental impairment with a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The disputed issue was whether those effects were long-term.

The effects had lasted less than 12 months at the material time. The tribunal therefore considered whether Ms Reid had proved, on the balance of probabilities, that it could well happen that they would last at least 12 months. Applying All Answers Ltd v W, Nissa v Waverly Education Foundation Ltd and Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd, it assessed the circumstances as they stood on 9 October 2025 without hindsight. The recurrence provision in Schedule 1, paragraph 2(2), did not apply because the substantial adverse effects had not ceased. There was no evidence that the effects were likely to last for the rest of her life.

The tribunal found Ms Reid credible and rejected the suggestion that she had adapted her evidence to fit the legal test. She acknowledged that she had not known how long the effects would last. Her belief that their severity indicated a duration of at least 12 months carried limited weight because she did not identify or produce the internet sources on which she relied. No empirical evidence addressed the typical duration of anxiety symptoms. Her GPs had provided no prognosis by the material date, and the September fit note covered four weeks.

The tribunal also considered Ms Reid’s previous health, attendance record and age, finding no evidence of factors that might prolong the effects. It accepted that the absence of a prediction of 12 months did not establish that the symptoms would resolve sooner. Nevertheless, the objective evidence did not establish the required likelihood, so the disability threshold was not met. Her separate constructive unfair dismissal complaint, following her resignation on 10 November 2025, remained for the final hearing. This judgment made no monetary award.