Cases2600789/2024

Claimant v Ascott Transport Limited

25 July 2025Before Employment Judge McTigueNottinghamin person

Outcome

Other

Individual claims

Direct Discrimination(disability)not determined

Preliminary hearing to determine disability status only. The substantive claim of direct discrimination will be heard at the final hearing listed for August 2026.

Discrimination Arising from Disability (s.15)(disability)not determined

Preliminary hearing to determine disability status only. The substantive claim of discrimination arising from disability will be heard at the final hearing listed for August 2026.

Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments(disability)not determined

Preliminary hearing to determine disability status only. The substantive claim regarding failure to make reasonable adjustments will be heard at the final hearing listed for August 2026.

Facts

The claimant, a warehouse operative employed since June 2019, brought discrimination claims alleging the respondent wrongly applied the Bradford Factor to absences related to various claimed disabilities. A preliminary hearing was held to determine which of his alleged impairments constituted disabilities under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant relied on eight impairments: depression, sleep apnoea, knee injury, back pain/sciatica, hiatus hernia, kidney stones, IBS, glaucoma, and insulin resistance. The tribunal heard evidence from the claimant, his partner, and reviewed medical records from his GP and a private Polish GP. The material time period was determined to be 28 March 2021 to 23 May 2024.

Decision

The tribunal found the claimant was disabled due to his knee injury (from 1 April 2023 to 23 May 2024) and his back pain/sciatica (throughout the material time period from 28 March 2021 to 23 May 2024). The tribunal rejected disability status for depression, sleep apnoea, hiatus hernia, and kidney stones, finding the claimant's evidence lacked credibility and contradicted medical evidence showing minimal treatment and mild or resolved symptoms. The judge found the claimant an unreliable witness who avoided questions and had poor recollection, and noted a redacted GP entry about fraudulently altering blood test request forms.

Practical note

Credibility is crucial in disability discrimination cases - tribunals will closely scrutinise consistency between a claimant's witness evidence and contemporaneous medical records, and may reject disability claims where alleged severe effects are not mentioned to GPs or are inconsistent with minimal treatment received.

Legal authorities cited

Walker v SITA Information Networking Computing Ltd [2013] 2 WLUK 272Banaszczyk v Booker Ltd UKEAT/0132/15SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] UKHL 37

Statutes

Equality Act 2010 s.6Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.5(2)Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.5(1)Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.2(2)Equality Act 2010 Sch.1 para.2(1)

Case details

Case number
2600789/2024
Decision date
25 July 2025
Hearing type
preliminary
Hearing days
1
Classification
contested

Respondent

Sector
logistics
Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister

Employment details

Role
Warehouse Operative/VNA Driver

Claimant representation

Represented
Yes
Rep type
barrister