Claimant v Insensys Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant's anxiety condition did not constitute a disability under s.6 Equality Act 2010. The impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities for at least 12 months. The claimant's panic attacks were reactive to workplace stressors, ceased to have substantial adverse effect by February 2024 (after 11 months), and the condition was not likely to last 12 months or recur. The tribunal concluded the claimant had exaggerated symptoms in tribunal proceedings and the objective evidence contradicted his account.
The unfair dismissal claim was not determined at this preliminary hearing, which dealt solely with the disability status question. The claim remains live subject to a full merits hearing.
Facts
Dr Lloyd was employed as CTO from October 2019 to July 2024. He began experiencing anxiety symptoms in September 2021, which worsened after a heated argument with his colleague and friend Mr Knox in February 2022 following the death of Knox's father. The claimant experienced two panic attacks in late 2022 and March 2023, triggered by workplace conflicts and stress from his father-in-law. He was prescribed sertraline in April 2023 which he took until October 2024. He was dismissed in July 2024 following an irretrievable breakdown in his relationship with Mr and Mrs Knox.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed the disability discrimination claims, finding that the claimant's anxiety condition did not meet the statutory definition of disability. The judge concluded that the claimant had exaggerated his symptoms in tribunal proceedings, that the panic attacks were reactive to specific workplace stressors and ceased to have a substantial adverse effect by February 2024 (after only 11 months), and that the objective evidence including GP records contradicted the claimant's account of severe ongoing symptoms.
Practical note
A claimant relying on deduced effect to establish disability must provide particularised evidence, often medical, to prove what would have happened without medication; exaggeration of symptoms and inconsistency between contemporaneous medical records and later tribunal accounts will be fatal to a disability claim.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1403467/2024
- Decision date
- 14 September 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Name
- Insensys Limited
- Sector
- technology
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Chief Technical Officer
- Service
- 5 years
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister