Case 8001654/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Taylor v Associated British Ports — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001654/2025
- Decision date
- 12 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge C McManus
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Taylor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal determined whether Mr Taylor had the protected characteristic of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 between 25 October 2024 and 7 April 2025. It found that he did not and therefore dismissed the Equality Act complaints that depended on disability status during that period.
Mr Taylor had suffered a subarachnoid haemorrhage in January 2023 and had also been diagnosed with an arteriovenous malformation. The Tribunal found that the significant physical effects had ended by March 2023, when he reported that he had recovered physically, and that neither physical condition had a substantial effect on his normal day-to-day activities during the material period.
The Tribunal found that anxiety following an incident on 13 May 2024 had substantially affected Mr Taylor's day-to-day activities and that medication and counselling reduced those effects. Giving greater weight to contemporaneous GP records, occupational health reports and communications than to inconsistent parts of his impact statement and oral evidence, it found that by January 2025 his low-mood symptoms were mild, he had no anxiety at that time, and the actual and deduced effects of his mental health on normal day-to-day activities were not clearly more than trivial.
Applying the questions identified in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital, the Tribunal concluded that the substantial effects had not lasted for 12 months and, assessed during the material period, there was no real possibility that they would continue for more than 12 months or recur. Mr Taylor therefore did not have a physical or mental impairment with a long-term substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in the material period.
No remedy was determined. The Tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint and the complaints of dismissal and detriment connected with protected disclosures were unaffected by this preliminary decision and would proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's Equality Act 2010 complaints that depended on him having the protected characteristic of disability during the material period, but does not identify the individual forms of disability discrimination alleged. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- s.6 Equality Act 2010 definition of disability
- s.212 Equality Act 2010: substantial means more than minor or trivial
- Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 long-term and treatment provisions
- Goodwin v Patent Office four-condition and deduced-effects approach
- Sullivan v Bury Street Capital disability questions
- Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd: likely means could well happen
- All Answers Ltd v W: likelihood assessed at the time of the alleged discrimination
- Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd functional approach to substantial adverse effect
- Balance of probabilities; burden of proving disability on the claimant
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.