Claimant v Orange Property Group Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
The tribunal found that the claimant suffered a TIA on 07.08.2022 but did not accept his evidence regarding the severity, duration, or cause of his claimed symptoms beyond the initial 24 hours. The tribunal found the claimant's account unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding headaches, urinary frequency, and medication timing. The tribunal concluded the claimant did not suffer symptoms with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities attributable to the TIA. Therefore, he did not meet the definition of disability under Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, and the disability discrimination claim failed at this preliminary stage.
Because the tribunal found the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, any claim of discrimination arising from disability necessarily failed. Without establishing disability status, there can be no claim that unfavourable treatment arose in consequence of something arising from a disability.
The tribunal's finding that the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010 meant that the duty to make reasonable adjustments did not arise. This claim therefore failed as a necessary consequence of the preliminary disability determination.
Facts
The claimant suffered a TIA (transient ischemic attack) on 7 August 2022, with initial symptoms lasting approximately 1-1.5 hours. He claimed ongoing symptoms including severe headaches, fatigue, urinary frequency, panic attacks, and reduced concentration which he attributed to the TIA. He was prescribed blood-thinning medication (Clopidogrel) immediately and statins in February 2023. He was dismissed on 28 October 2022 and commenced new physically demanding employment as a carpenter in December 2022. This preliminary hearing determined whether he met the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010.
Decision
The tribunal found the claimant was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010. While accepting he suffered a TIA, the tribunal found his evidence regarding ongoing symptoms was unreliable, inconsistent, and exaggerated. The tribunal did not accept his claimed headaches, fatigue, or other symptoms had a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities or were attributable to the TIA. Key credibility issues included contradictory evidence about urinary frequency and statin use, failure to report severe symptoms to medical professionals despite claiming hospital phobia, and ability to work in physically demanding employment soon after dismissal.
Practical note
A transient medical event like a TIA will not meet the disability definition unless the claimant can provide credible, consistent evidence of substantial ongoing symptoms - medical records contradicting claimed severity and ability to perform physically demanding work will undermine credibility even where the initial condition is serious.
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 2300885/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2024
- Hearing type
- preliminary
- Hearing days
- 1
- Classification
- contested
Respondent
- Sector
- real estate
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- solicitor
Claimant representation
- Represented
- Yes
- Rep type
- barrister