Mr J Melvin v Horizon Parking Limited — 2026

Mr J Melvin worked for Horizon Parking Limited as a mobile patrol officer from about 2017/2018 until 30 April 2025, when his employment ended after he worked four weeks' notice. He said that in March 2025 he was told he would be required to do maintenance duties, that he could not work on electrical boxes because he was colour blind, that he was instructed to buy colour-blindness corrective glasses at his own expense, and that he resigned after asking whether the respondent wanted his resignation. The respondent disputed that he met the Equality Act definition of disability.

The tribunal accepted that the claimant had PX colour deficiency (deuteranope), diagnosed on 16 September 2025, and recorded the difficulties he described in distinguishing certain colours, choosing clothing, cooking, using card machines, and dealing with vehicle colour information. It also accepted that he could drive, had worked with a company car, used workarounds such as an app for vehicle details, and was able to manage many ordinary activities with the adaptations he described.

Applying section 6 Equality Act 2010, together with the statutory meaning of "substantial" in section 212(1) and the Schedule 1 paragraph 5 provisions, the tribunal held that the impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on his normal day-to-day activities at the relevant time, March to April 2025. It accepted the respondent's case that electrical work was not part of his role and treated the 31 March 2025 camera fault as a rebooting task that did not involve electrical wiring. The tribunal therefore held that the claimant was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 6 Equality Act 2010.