Claimant v Hughes TV and Audio Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time (12-16 February 2024). The claimant's migraine condition, while a physical impairment, did not have a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities at that time because he was controlling it with cannabis. The tribunal found no objective medical evidence that cannabis was a recognised treatment that should be disregarded under the 'deduced effects' provision, and therefore the actual controlled state of his condition had to be considered. The claimant stated in February 2024 that he had not had migraine attacks for a year and a half since being prescribed medical cannabis.
Facts
The claimant brought disability discrimination claims based on migraines which he had suffered since 2001. He had been using cannabis to manage his condition since self-medicating for many years, and obtained a private prescription for medical cannabis from Sapphire/Curaleaf clinic from April 2023. The alleged discriminatory acts occurred during his employment in February 2024, specifically 12-16 February. The claimant stated in February 2024 that he had not had migraine attacks for a year and a half since being prescribed medical cannabis. The tribunal found inconsistencies in his evidence about attacks around Christmas 2023 and questioned his credibility on this point.
Decision
The tribunal found that the claimant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time in February 2024. While migraines constituted a physical impairment, the claimant had not provided objective medical evidence that cannabis use was a recognised medical treatment whose effects should be disregarded under the 'deduced effects' provision. Considering the actual controlled state of his condition with cannabis use, the tribunal found no substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities at the relevant time. The disability discrimination claims were therefore dismissed.
Practical note
Without objective medical evidence that a self-administered substance constitutes recognised medical treatment, a tribunal cannot disregard its effects when assessing whether an impairment has a substantial adverse effect under the Equality Act 2010 disability definition.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 3306083/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2025
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- retail
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No