Claimant v Development Bank of Wales
Outcome
Individual claims
This was a preliminary hearing solely to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal found that the claimant was disabled due to pain in his left leg, including DVT and related conditions, which had substantial and long-term adverse effects on day-to-day activities from July 2023 onwards. The merits of the discrimination claims were not determined at this hearing.
Facts
Dr Jones was employed by Development Bank of Wales from January to November 2023 in a desk-based role involving travel throughout Wales and England. From July 2023 he experienced persistent throbbing pain in his left leg, initially diagnosed as possible muscular pain, then DVT, and later post-thrombotic syndrome and superficial thrombophlebitis. He was prescribed blood thinners and painkillers. The pain affected his ability to sit, stand, and walk for extended periods, impacting his work including desk-based tasks and business travel. The respondent challenged his credibility, noting only one recorded day of sick leave, though evidence showed informal absences and reduced hours.
Decision
The tribunal found that Dr Jones was a disabled person within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time. The persistent throbbing leg pain constituted a physical impairment that had substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities including sitting, standing, walking, and travelling. The tribunal applied the deduced effect principle, finding that without medication the pain would resume. The condition was long-term, likely to last beyond 12 months given symptoms persisted from July/August 2023 through employment and beyond, likely developing into post-thrombotic syndrome.
Practical note
Tribunals can determine deduced effect of medication on disability status using common sense where the purpose of medication is obvious (e.g. painkillers relieve pain) without requiring expert medical evidence, though should not speculate beyond what is obvious.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 1601164/2024
- Decision date
- 6 August 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- financial services
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Service
- 11 months
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister