Mr G Livingstone v Ainscough Crane Hire Limited — 2026

This was a preliminary hearing to decide two jurisdictional issues: whether Mr Livingstone was disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 by reason of hypertension, and whether he had made a protected disclosure under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal recorded that any remaining complaints would be dealt with at a later case management hearing.

On disability, the tribunal found that Mr Livingstone had a physical impairment of essential hypertension, diagnosed by his GP on 24 April 2024 and treated with daily medication. It accepted that between May 2024 and June 2025 he experienced irritability, intolerance, disturbed sleep, exhaustion, anxiety, reduced confidence, and other work-related symptoms, and that he was genuine in describing those effects. However, it found that those symptoms were not caused by hypertension. The tribunal noted the absence of medical evidence connecting the symptoms to hypertension, the existence of workplace stressors connected with lift supervisor and slinger duties, and the fact that the symptoms did not continue after suspension or in later employment although the hypertension persisted.

The tribunal concluded that hypertension had no adverse effect on Mr Livingstone's normal day-to-day activities at the relevant times. He therefore did not prove that the impairment had a substantial adverse effect, and the tribunal did not need to decide whether any effect was long-term. It held that he was not disabled within section 6 Equality Act 2010, and dismissed the complaints of direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

On protected disclosure, the tribunal found that in about February 2025 Mr Livingstone challenged Mr Jones in a private conversation in the Dundee bothy, saying that Mr Jones was bullying Mr Drummond and telling him to stop. Mr Livingstone genuinely believed that Mr Drummond was disabled and that Mr Jones was bullying him, but the tribunal found that the statement was general, lacked reference to specific incidents or facts, and was not supplemented by context capable of giving it the required factual content. Applying Cavendish and Kilraine, the tribunal held that the statement was not a disclosure of information within section 43B Employment Rights Act 1996. The alleged disclosure was therefore not a protected disclosure, and the automatic unfair dismissal complaint under section 103A was dismissed. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.