Claimant v Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person under s6 Equality Act 2010. Without establishing disability status, the claim of direct disability discrimination could not succeed. The claimant had no medical evidence of an airborne fish allergy and the tribunal found she did not have the asserted impairment.
The tribunal found the claimant was not a disabled person in the relevant period (November 2024 to January 2025) as a result of airborne fish allergy. She produced no medical evidence to support the existence of an airborne fish allergy, only evidence of a consumption-based fish allergy from 2004. Without disability status established, the discrimination arising from disability claim was dismissed.
The claim failed because the claimant did not establish she was a disabled person. The tribunal found no medical evidence that an airborne fish allergy existed or that any adverse effects on day-to-day activities were caused by such an impairment. The requisite objective causation between the asserted impairment and adverse effects was not established, following the test in Primaz v Carl Room Restaurants.
Facts
The claimant was offered a role as Support Grade Assistant with the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service, but the offer was withdrawn. She brought claims of disability discrimination based on an asserted airborne fish allergy. In 2004, aged 16, she had a reaction after eating fish and was diagnosed with a moderate fish allergy via RAST testing, advised to avoid consuming fish. She claimed this developed into an airborne allergy by 2023, citing two incidents where she believed proximity to fish caused reactions. She had never been medically diagnosed with an airborne fish allergy or advised to avoid proximity to fish.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed all claims, finding the claimant was not a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held there was no medical evidence to establish the existence of an airborne fish allergy. The claimant had only been diagnosed with and advised about consumption-based fish allergy. The tribunal applied the objective causation test from Primaz and found the claimant had not established that any adverse effects on day-to-day activities were caused by the asserted impairment. Without disability status, none of the discrimination claims could succeed.
Practical note
A claimant's genuine belief that they have a particular impairment is insufficient; objective medical evidence is required to establish disability status, particularly where the asserted impairment differs from any diagnosed condition.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 8000984/2025
- Decision date
- 21 October 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 3
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- public sector
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Employment details
- Role
- Support Grade Assistant
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No