Case 8001025/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Anderson v Argyll & Bute Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001025/2024
- Decision date
- 13 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Anderson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held a public preliminary hearing to decide whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the time of the events complained of. The claimant relied on asthma, a disability impact statement, and GP evidence confirming asthma and inhaler use.
The Tribunal found that the claimant's written and medical evidence did not explain any substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, either with or without medication. The claimant was given further opportunities to provide evidence after the hearing, but the additional material did not address the required impact on day-to-day activities.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had not discharged the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that her asthma had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to undertake day-to-day activities at the material time. It therefore found that she was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment determined the preliminary issue of disability status only, finding that the claimant was not a disabled person within section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material times. It did not adjudicate the merits of any discrimination allegations or make a remedy award. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4
- EHRC Employment Code Appendix 1
- Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007 ICR 1522
- balance of probabilities
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.