Cases6009433/2024

Claimant v AJ Bell PLC

4 November 2025Before Employment Judge DunlopManchesterremote video

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 during the period 2015-June 2024. He failed to demonstrate a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day-to-day activities, either in or out of work.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)failed

As the claimant was not found to be a disabled person, the claim under s.15 for discrimination arising from disability (relating to his work history from 2015-2024) could not succeed.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)failed

The claim for failure to make reasonable adjustments during the recruitment process failed because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled at the material time.

Harassment(disability)failed

The tribunal found that the harassment claim related to disability could not survive the finding that the claimant was not disabled, and there was no sufficient evidence that the respondent perceived him to be disabled within the meaning of s.6 despite his request for reasonable adjustments.

Direct Discrimination(age)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant prior to the preliminary hearing.

Direct Discrimination(disability)withdrawn

Withdrawn by claimant prior to the preliminary hearing.

Facts

The claimant applied for two roles with the respondent in April and June 2024 but was unsuccessful. He was never employed by the respondent. He claimed disability discrimination relating to anxiety and low mood diagnosed in 2015, alleging the respondent ignored his requests for reasonable adjustments during recruitment. The claimant had an extensive employment history since 2015 with numerous short-term roles ending in dismissal or resignation, which he attributed to his mental health conditions.

Decision

The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within s.6 Equality Act 2010 during 2015-June 2024. He failed to demonstrate substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities either in or outside work. The tribunal followed a similar finding by EJ Aspinall in an earlier case involving the same claimant and dismissed all claims.

Practical note

A poor employment history and difficulty maintaining roles is not sufficient in itself to establish disability status; claimants must identify specific day-to-day activities substantially affected by their impairment rather than relying on composite outcomes like 'holding down a job'.

Legal authorities cited

Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd [2013] ICR 591Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302Chacón Navas v Eurest Colectividades SA 2007 ICR 1Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007 ICR 1522Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd 2016 IRLR 273HK Danmark v Dansk almennyttigt Boligselskab 2013 ICR 851Williams v Newport City Council 2023 EAT 136Chief Constable of Norfolk Constabulary v Coffey 2020 ICR 145

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.27Equality Act 2010 s.212(1)Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 Schedule 1Equality Act 2010 s.13Equality Act 2010 s.15Equality Act 2010 ss.20-21Equality Act 2010 s.26

Case details

Case number
6009433/2024
Decision date
4 November 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
financial services
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Financial Services Administrator / Customer Service Administrator (applicant)

Claimant representation

Represented
No