The Claimant claimed she was disabled based on having a ‘Mixed Personality Disorder’. At a Preliminary Hearing to determine whether the Claimant had a disability, the Tribunal rejected that claim, and found, in any event, that there was no specific evidence to substantiate her claim that her condition had a substantial adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day to day activities. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that:
(1) The Tribunal had erred in its approach to the question of impairment by considering that issue first before determining the substantial adverse effect issue and
(2) That its conclusion that there was no substantial adverse effect was one that no reasonable tribunal, properly considering the evidence, would have reached.
Held, dismissing the appeal, that in respect of ground (1), the Tribunal did not err in considering the issue of impairment first. It was stated in J v DLA Piper LLP [2010] ICR 1052 that Tribunal should not apply rigid sequential approach to the questions under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 see [40(2)]. However, that did not mean that the Tribunal necessarily erred in dealing with the questions in the order they appear in the statutory provisions. The Tribunal did go on to consider the question of substantial adverse effect in any event. As to ground (2), the Tribunal’s conclusion that there was no substantial adverse effect cannot be said to be perverse. Whilst there was some evidence relating to the kinds of matters, identified in the Guidance, that it would be reasonable to treat as having a substantial adverse effect, that evidence was somewhat thin, and it was open to the Tribunal, in the circumstances, to conclude that the requirement of substantial adverse effect was not made out.
[2020] UKEAT 0266 – 19 – 1802
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment
Updated: 12 November 2021; Ref: scu.653263
