Case 8001687/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Callum Kane v The City of Edinburgh Council — 2026
- Case reference
- 8001687/2025
- Decision date
- 20 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robison
- Venue
- Edinburgh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Callum Kane
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary issue was whether the claimant was a disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 and from what date. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant only. The respondent's application to add a time limit issue had been granted, but that issue was deferred and not determined at this hearing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant had the mental impairment of depression. It did not accept that seasonal affective disorder was established on the evidence, and noted that PTSD was not relied on as an impairment in this case. The tribunal found the claimant's evidence broadly credible and reliable, while noting limitations in the medical evidence because only extracts of occupational health and GP reports had been lodged.
The tribunal found that the claimant's depression affected normal day-to-day activities, including getting out of bed, washing, sleeping, leaving the house, using public transport and attending crowded environments when symptoms were severe. Although the condition fluctuated and symptoms were not continuous, the tribunal found the adverse effect was substantial and long term, taking account of recurrence, medication, and occupational health evidence. It concluded that the claimant was disabled by reason of depression at the material time, from May 2024 to date, and that the claim should proceed to a final hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing judgment only determined disability status under section 6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found the claimant was disabled by reason of depression at the material time; the substantive discrimination complaints and time limit issue were not determined and the case was to proceed to case management and final hearing. | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- section 6 Equality Act 2010
- Goodwin v Patent Office 1999 ICR 302
- J v DLA Piper [2010] ICR 1052
- section 212(1) Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 5(1), Schedule 1, Equality Act 2010
- paragraph 2(2), Schedule 1, Equality Act 2010
- Latchman v Reed Business Information [2002] ICR 1453
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.