Claimant v The Princess Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's multiple sclerosis at any material time. The claimant deliberately chose not to disclose his MS during the recruitment process, occupational health screening, or when requesting collection from the train station. Without knowledge of disability, the section 15 claim could not succeed. Additionally, the tribunal found the reason for withdrawing the offer was the prolonged delay in completing pre-employment checks (nearly 6 months), not the claimant's request for collection from the station.
The tribunal accepted the respondent applied a PCP that applicants were expected to make their own way to the recruitment office, and that this caused the claimant substantial disadvantage due to his mobility difficulties. However, the respondent did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know of the claimant's disability or that he would be substantially disadvantaged. The claimant never explained his request for collection was disability-related. The occupational health assessment had found him 'fit with no restrictions'. The duty to make reasonable adjustments therefore did not arise. Even if it had, providing transport was not reasonable on 31 January as it was requested only on arrival at the station with no advance notice, and the claimant could have arranged a taxi himself for the approximately 2-mile journey.
Facts
The claimant, a doctor with multiple sclerosis, applied for a 12-month fixed-term role as a Specialist Registrar in Respiratory in August 2023 and was conditionally offered the role in October 2023. The offer was subject to pre-employment checks. The claimant did not disclose his MS during the application, interview, or occupational health assessment. Significant delays occurred in completing the checks, particularly the ID verification. On 31 January 2024, the claimant arrived at Harlow Mill station for a face-to-face ID check and requested collection by the respondent, citing lack of local transport, but did not explain this was due to mobility difficulties from his MS. Nearly six months after the offer, with checks still incomplete and after three seven-day warnings, the respondent withdrew the offer on 23 April 2024 citing the excessive time taken for checks and a departmental decision to use resources differently.
Decision
The tribunal dismissed both claims. It found the respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the claimant's MS at any material time, as he deliberately chose not to disclose it and nothing he said or did would have led the respondent to discover it. The tribunal further found the reason for withdrawing the offer was the prolonged delay in completing pre-employment checks (nearly six months versus the usual three months maximum) and a departmental review of resource allocation, not the claimant's request for collection from the station. Even if the duty to make reasonable adjustments had arisen, the tribunal found it would not have been reasonable to provide transport given the request was made only on arrival at the station with no advance notice or explanation that it was disability-related.
Practical note
An employer cannot be liable for disability discrimination if it has no actual or constructive knowledge of the disability, and claimants bear responsibility for disclosing their disabilities and explaining why requested adjustments are needed — oblique references or unexplained requests will not suffice to fix an employer with knowledge or trigger the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6004854/2024
- Decision date
- 23 June 2025
- Hearing type
- full merits
- Hearing days
- 4
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- healthcare
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister
Employment details
- Role
- Specialist Registrar in Respiratory
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No