Case 8000461/2023 · Employment Tribunal
ETZ 4(WR) IN THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL (SCOTLAND) AT EDINBURGH Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in Case No: 8000461/2023 Issued Following Preliminary Hearing Held at Edinburgh, on the Cloud Based Video Platform, on th of February 2024, with Deliberation on st April 2024 Employment Judge J G d’Inverno Mr S Anderson
The preliminary hearing was confined to whether the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability, said to arise from ADHD, on 18 August 2023, and whether the respondent should be allowed to amend its pleaded case. The tribunal accepted that the claimant had likely been diagnosed with ADHD in childhood, around 2007, but found no medical evidence expressly vouching a continuing diagnosis at the material time and no recent NHS consultation or prescribed ADHD medication between April 2011 and 18 August 2023.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had used cannabis daily from age 16 and that, from April 2011 onwards, he self-medicated with non-prescribed cannabis before later obtaining a private prescription from Sapphire Medical from around July 2022. It held that self-medication and non-prescribed support from a friend were not 'measures' to be discounted under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010, but that the evidence did not enable it to distinguish the effects of ADHD from the commonly reported effects of long-term cannabis use. It also noted that the claimant had been able to work long and demanding shifts over extended periods.
On that evidence, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claimant had proved that he had the protected characteristic of disability at the material time, or that any impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. The discrimination complaints were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Had jurisdiction existed, the tribunal said it would have granted the respondent leave to amend under the Selkent principles, because the proposed amendment was a factual response to the claimant's cannabis disclosure, was relevant to remedy, and would not have caused prejudice.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed for want of jurisdiction after the tribunal found the claimant had not proved that he had ADHD-related disability at the material time, 18 August 2023. | 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.