Mr D Spencer v DPD Group UK Ltd: 1300257/2025 and 6006577/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1300257/2025, 6006577/2025
Between
Mr D SpencerClaimantMr F Currie, counselRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Robin BroughtonMr F Currie (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 29 December 2025
JUDGMENT
The claimant has not established that he met the statutory definition of a disabled person at the relevant times for the purpose of his claims before this tribunal.
REASONS
[1]The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as a linehaul driver from 19 June 2019 until his summary dismissal on 29 October 2024.[2]He brought claims of a failure to make reasonable adjustments and for discrimination because of something arising from disability and disability related harassment. The relevant period being that from April 2024 until his dismissal. He also claimed unfair dismissal.[3]This hearing was arranged to determine whether the Claimant met the statutory definition of disability at all or any of the relevant times by virtue or mental impairment and, specifically, stress, anxiety and/or depression.[4]In support of his assertions, the Claimant provided an impact statement, including a response to tribunal questions supported by limited GP records. He also gave oral evidence. Beyond those GP records and a few fit notes there were no medical reports nor any formal diagnosis. Facts[5]The relevant background facts that were before me are as follows.[6]The Claimant was suspended in January 2023 for what the Respondent considered to be a serious failure in relation to coupling his lorry. The first detailed entry from the medical notes provided arose during this suspension in February 2023 when his GP recorded a “stress related problem” referencing the disciplinary proceedings causing “stress and worry” and saying the Claimant “wants a sick note” which was duly provided.[7]The next entry was the following month on 10 March 2023 when the Claimant was still suspended but also now on bail. The Claimant said this related to an allegation of harassment made against him by a former partner. The Respondent was unaware of this at the time.[8]The GP again noted a “stress related problem”, that the Claimant was “struggling to come to terms with everything” and that he had requested a sicknote for a few months which he was given, although that note, for some reason was not before me. He was prescribed sertraline, an antidepressant. 9. 3 weeks later, however, the Claimant attended his GP again, this time requesting to be signed back to work saying he needed to “go back or show willing even though still off as he needs to be paid”. He was given a note saying he may be fit for work with support.[10]These entries arguably suggest a GP doing as requested by the patient, albeit within reason and doubtless mindful of the Hippocratic oath.[11]At some point thereafter it appears that the Claimant was dismissed for the coupling incident. He appealed and was reinstated on 15 May 2023 with a final written warning. The Claimant had argued in mitigation that his personal circumstances had adversely affected his mental health but that he was now in a much better place, his union representative even saying he was “better than ever” as a result of which the Respondent seemingly showed the requested clemency.[12]Before me the Claimant said that his mental health continued to improve throughout the rest of the year, such that he was going to the gym several times a week and he stopped taking the sertraline. He said that was towards the end of the year, although his GP records did not appear to show either repeat prescriptions for sertraline (although they partially did for subsequent medications) nor when they ceased.[13]In any event, all the evidence before me suggested that any mental impairment suffered by the Claimant in 2023 was reactive to his personal and work circumstances and resolved within a matter of months.[14]The Claimant acknowledged that there was nothing in the medical records to suggest any link between the alleged impairment in 2023 and the period of relevance before me in 2024, nor regarding whether there was any likelihood of recurrence.[15]Indeed, there were no entries recording any consultations with the Claimant’s GP between March 2023 and September 2024.[16]The Claimant did produce a document from his GP showing a summary of his medical history which, under the heading “minor” problems listed a variety of matters since 2022, including a few entries for stress and / or anxiety, including one in June 2024, albeit all with clear end dates.[17]There was nothing, therefore, to suggest that there was such a link and, without more, the mere recurrence of certain reactive symptoms is insufficient to evidence an underlying condition. In any event, there was no personal medical evidence of a substantial adverse effect on day to day activities at any point in 2023 and expressly none towards the end of that year. As a result, the Claimant’s impact statement primarily addressed the period from April 2024.[18]On 27 March 2024, the Claimant was arrested outside his workplace. He was detained for a couple of days and charged with harassment and 2 counts of assault and battery against a different ex partner.[19]The Respondent initially verbally suspended him on his return around 2 April 2024 but then reversed the decision on 3 April 2024, following representations by the Claimant that these were “personal issues”. This was confirmed by letter dated 4 April 2024, effectively determining that he was innocent until proven guilty.[20]The Respondent expressly required the Claimant to keep them informed of any pending court cases that could impact his ability to complete his contractual duties. They also say they have a policy requiring the disclosure of any criminal convictions.[21]The Claimant said that he considered the 4 April letter to have been unclear or ambiguous and that it was this letter that was “eating away at him daily” causing his mental health problems to affect almost every part of his life.[22]That made no sense as, having been given the benefit of the doubt, if the Claimant didn’t understand what was required of him, he could simply have asked. Moreover, if he was suffering as much as now claimed, he could and, on the evidence before me, would have returned to his GP.[23]That is not to say that facing 2 separate criminal cases would not be extremely worrying for anyone. However, before me the Claimant was adamant that these played no part in his alleged mental state which was, he said, entirely due to the “vague” letter. This did nothing for his credibility.[24]In reality, some employers may well have investigated further in April and / or maintained the suspension for longer.[25]The Claimant continued to work, saying that the contents of the April letter didn’t really hit him until June when he was, seemingly, on 11 June 2024, signed off by his GP for anxiety and stress for 4 weeks although, inexplicably, there was no record of any consultation before me.[26]The Claimant said that “although the June sick note did not specifically state work-related stress, the timing and my symptoms were a direct result of the April events at DPD, particularly the 4 April letter”. That struck me as, at best, highly unlikely given that both of the Claimant’s court hearings were listed for June and, indeed, the first was due, on his evidence, on 12 June, the very next day, although he subsequently suggested that date may have been wrong.[27]Inevitably, the pending court cases were causing the Claimant stress and worry despite his denials and, in my judgment must have been, at least, one of the main reasons he was signed off sick. In his subsequent investigation the Claimant said it was due to “family issues” that “coincided” with his court date (singular). At that stage the Respondent was seemingly unaware of the Claimant’s earlier charges and additional court hearing.[28]The Claimant denied obtaining the sick note so that he would not have to inform his employer of the court dates but, either way, his attendance at court and/or sickness absences would, arguably, have impacted his ability to complete his contractual duties, although that was not how the Claimant claimed to have understood the 4 April letter. In any event, he asserted that the Respondent was aware of the court dates. That may be a matter for the next hearing.[29]The Claimant apparently changed all of his pleas to guilty on the days of the court hearings and was given community service, a rehabilitation order and a suspended prison sentence. He appeared before me from HMP Dovegate, where he is apparently on remand charged with having subsequently breached the terms of his probation.[30]Nonetheless, he returned to work in July 2024 but was suspended in early August when the Respondent asked for an update on the March 2024 arrest and found out about one of his convictions.[31]The Claimant was invited to a disciplinary hearing to take place on 5 September 2024. He attended his GP, according to the consultation record, for the first time since March 2023, on 4 September 2024, notwithstanding that something must have happened in June 2024 to result in the sicknote produced.[32]The record indicates that on 4 September the Claimant discussed his anxieties around his work situation and the effect on his mood and sleep. Nonetheless, it was expressly recorded that he “can go about daily activities”.[33]In his response to written tribunal questions before me, the Claimant said “I lost all motivation to do basic things like cooking proper meals — often skipping food or binge eating junk. I stopped enjoying the gym, which had been a big part of my routine and identity since losing significant weight. When I did go, I only went through the motions, having lost my mind-tomuscle connection because my head was consumed by overthinking and constant worry about losing my job. I deliberately avoided going to avoid people. Friends I once spoke to daily, I began avoiding — with some telling me they could see I had changed. Sometimes I wouldn’t answer the door or phone at all. Most painfully, I stopped seeing my children regularly because I knew that, while I could physically be there, I couldn’t be mentally present to give them the attention and love they deserved. This has strained those relationships with time lost and irreversible damage. Even basic tasks like getting dressed felt pointless. These debilitating symptoms left me feeling lost, without purpose, and unable to carry out even simple daily activities.”[34]The context of this response, however, read to me as if the Claimant were describing his condition after, on his case, his symptoms worsened following the outcome of his grievance later in September 2024. Before me, however, he said this described the effects of his condition as early as April 2024.[35]That was a suggestion I could not accept because, if true, the Claimant would almost certainly have gone to his GP sooner. He could offer no explanation for this. He would have been unable to work. Moreover, when he did visit the GP on 4 September, he reported the opposite regarding his ability to do daily tasks.[36]In addition the GP recorded the Claimant’s joint custody of his children in the social section, rather than any suggestion that he had stopped seeing them regularly at that stage at least. All of the alleged symptoms recorded by the GP in September 2024 were considerably less serious than those the Claimant was now suggesting before me had started in April 2024 and worsened subsequently.[37]The GP record suggested that the Claimant was suffering from not being able to see work colleagues due to his suspension, suggesting that he was, otherwise, able and willing to do so, rather than that he was avoiding people outside of work.[38]The Claimant’s case before this tribunal is that he didn’t think he needed to inform the Respondent of his court hearings because they wouldn’t impact his work. If that were right, there would be no reason for the Claimant to fear losing his job, as referenced in the impact statement, until at least August 2024.[39]On the Claimant’s alleged understanding of the 4 April letter, the only reason to fear losing his job would be if it were possible that he could have received a custodial sentence. If he believed that were possible, however, his alleged reason for not informing the Respondent of his court hearings would, seemingly, fall away.[40]In any event, that may be a consideration for another day, suffice it to say that I did not find the Claimant’s evidence to be credible, or consistent or supported by medical evidence, regarding the alleged adverse effects experienced between April and September 2024.[41]This was further confirmed by his impact statement which stated that it was the “mishandling” of his grievance and disciplinary that left him “emotionally drained, isolated, and unable to see his children. It caused the breakdown of friendships, strained family, and forced him onto medication”. This, therefore, also put the adverse effects described at the end of September or early October 2024.[42]In addition, the Claimant claimed that his mental health was an important consideration before the criminal courts in mitigation. However, no medical support was provided for this assertion seemingly at the time, nor before me.[43]On 4 September 2024, the only reference in the GP notes to any past mental health issues was regarding grief when struggling with the loss of the Claimant’s father several years earlier, although no dates were given. It was unclear why there was no reference to the earlier work related issues in 2022 and 2023 but this may suggest they were viewed separately. It was recorded that the Claimant did not want a sick note.[44]The Claimant had his disciplinary hearing on 5 September 2024 and objected to his manager’s suggestion that being signed off at the time of his court cases was “convenient” and that GPs have to base their diagnosis on what the patient reports.[45]That may have been misunderstood as the next day the Claimant attended his GP alleging that he had been told that a GP cannot diagnose stress to be told, rightly, that they diagnose on symptoms. In this case, that was limited to those that were self-reported, however, as whenever the Claimant was examined for objective manifestations, such as maintaining eye contact, his reactions were reported as normal.[46]It was recorded that the Claimant “would like to have some time off to deal with problems at work” and a sicknote was issued for 4 weeks for “stress related problems”.[47]I would accept that diagnosis in the mental health arena will often depend on the inherently subjective reporting of a patient’s symptoms.[48]On expiry of that sicknote, however, it did appear that the Claimant’s symptoms may have deteriorated. This appeared to be the period that he was originally referring to in his impact statement.[49]He returned to his GP on 2 October 2024, reporting “depressed mood”. There was no medical record of adverse effects beyond those to his mood and sleep but he was prescribed mirtazapine as he had apparently tried this via a friend and it had helped with sleep. He was not signed off again.[50]The mirtazapine appeared to help faster than would normally be expected as the Claimant next attended his GP on 28 October 2024 reporting that his mood was fine and sleep improved with good eye contact and speaking well.[51]The Claimant was dismissed on 29 November 2024 and able to submit his appeal the same day. To his credit, he was able to attend his appeal hearing unsupported and represent himself on 8 November 2024. His appeal was unsuccessful.[52]There was one further entry on 20 November 2024 when the Claimant requested an increased dose of mirtazapine which was approved. His evidence was that he continues to take this and believes it is helpful, although there was no medical record to support that.[53]In fact, there were no further consultations in the records produced that were obtained in July 2025.[54]It was surprising that there were no records before me of the alleged repeat prescriptions in 2023, nor of any consultation in June 2024, nor of any repeat prescriptions after November 2024, which is not to say that they don’t exist. There was no medical evidence of the likely impact, if any, on the Claimant if he were to stop taking his medication after his mood and sleep stabilised in late October 2024, when he was dismissed.[55]There was also no medical evidence about how long the Claimant’s symptoms were likely to last at any relevant time, nor whether they were likely to recur. That said, the Claimant maintained that his ill health, or at least his need for medication, continued to this day.[56]It was also unclear whether the medical record entries such as “stress related problems” and “depressed mood” were intended to mean the same as anxiety, depression or stress or to deliberately delineate adverse reactions to life events which may, nonetheless, benefit from therapy and / or medication and could, nonetheless, potentially still meet the employment law definition of disability.[57]Thereafter, the Claimant was able to promptly and fully engage with ACAS and the tribunal process and obtain agency work until his subsequent incarceration for, he said, an alleged breach of his earlier probation. Issues and law[58]I now set out some legal principles to be applied. The first is that the Claimant brings various complaints of disability discrimination. In order for those claims to be successful it is necessary for the Claimant to establish that he met the definition of a disabled person within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 (Act) or, rather, that he did at some or all of the relevant times between April and November 2024.[59]The burden of proof on this issue rests upon the Claimant and it is for him to establish (on the balance of probabilities) that he satisfied the definition within the Act.[60]The relevant starting point is Section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 which says “a person has a disability if that person has a physical or mental impairment and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on that person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities”[61]It is clear from that Section that what the Tribunal has to be satisfied of is that there isa. either a physical or a mental impairment,b. that that impairment has an effect on the Claimant’s ability to carry out day to day activities andc. that that effect is both substantial andd. long term.[62]Schedule 1 to the 2010 Act then provides further assistance, at paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 which is headed long term effects. It says “the effect of an impairment is long term if it has lasted for at least 12 months, it is likely to last for at least 12 months or it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected…. or if it is “likely to recur”.[63]For the purpose of determining whether an effect is substantial or not it must be noted that substantial is defined within the Act in Section 212(1) and means “more than minor or trivial”.[64]There are also some relevant paragraphs from the Guidance on Disability issued by the Secretary of State in 2011 not least that “likely” is actually to be interpreted to mean “could well happen”.[65]I have also considered the authority of J -v- DLA Piper [2010] ICR 1052, EAT in which a distinction was drawn between, say, clinical depression and a reaction to adverse life events. That is not to say, however, that the latter can never amount to a disability as defined.[66]In that case, the EAT also considered an example of someone who suffered several short episodes of depression which had a substantial adverse impact on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities but who between those episodes was symptom-free and did not require treatment. In such a case it was held that there would need to be medical evidence to determine whether they were a number of discrete illnesses or a single condition producing recurrent symptomatic episodes.[67]To the extent that the limited medical evidence before me addressed this point, it pointed towards the former, identifying periods of stress or anxiety reactive to life events, described as “minor” and with clear end dates.[68]I am aware that with certain illnesses and impairments, not least those relating to mental health, having suffered once there may be an increased vulnerability to further episodes but, again, the EAT in the DLA Piper case considered that this fact alone was not enough to show a single illness with recurrent episodes or a likelihood of recurrence. It was held that these questions are ones on which medical evidence would be required, but there was none before me addressing this point, nor the likely duration of the alleged adverse effects in 2024, nor the effects absent medication.
Conclusions
[69]In summary, therefore, I do not accept that the Claimant has met the burden of proof upon him to link any of his historic mental health issues to those alleged in 2024. His own evidence before me was that he was in a “good place mentally and physically” by the end of 2023 at the latest. He acknowledged there was no medical evidence making such a link.[70]I did not find his evidence credible, consistent with his own written statements nor the GP records in relation to the period between April and the end of September 2024.[71]He was working for the majority of this time, there were no GP consultation records until early September and, when there were, they reported that the Claimant could do daily activities, contrary to his assertions before me. He was not medicated at this time.[72]As a result, I was unable to identify any mental impairment, nor any substantial adverse effects on the Claimant during this period.[73]I acknowledge that he did appear to be signed off in June 2024 for the period of his 2 court cases but I consider it entirely implausible that this had much, if anything, to do with the alleged vague letter from work on 4 April 2024, certainly without support from the medical record.[74]It is equally implausible that the pending court cases had nothing to do with his alleged poor mental state at that time, as claimed.[75]In addition, I note the surprising absence of the GP consultation notes at this time and the fact that, during his investigation, the Claimant gave a completely different reason for this ill health absence, being family issues related to his mother.[76]That is not to say that pending court cases and subsequent disciplinary proceedings would not, almost inevitably, impact most people’s stress levels, anxiety and mental health but there was nothing before me to show that the Claimant’s position at this time was any different from what would ordinarily be expected and, again, nothing to link it to earlier or subsequent episodes.[77]To the extent that there were any adverse effects in June, they were reactive, short-term, unsupported and based on an unreliable account by the Claimant.[78]Similarly, in early September, the symptoms reported to the GP were nothing like those alleged before me. They were largely reactive to the Claimant’s work situation and appeared contradicted by the medical record in relation to normal daily activities.[79]I consider the contemporaneous record to be more accurate than the Claimant’s amended account before me.[80]Even the GP notes, however, could largely only report the inherently subjective account of the Claimant at the various relevant times. Throughout there was no record of the personal and family issues that, nonetheless, must have been having a substantial impact on the Claimant, resulting in at least 2 arrests and subsequent convictions. This was despite his assertions before me that it was only really work related stress.[81]There was nothing at that stage to suggest that the reported disturbed sleep was anything more than a consequence of the Claimant’s circumstances, let alone that it may be likely, as defined, to last 12 months or more. No medication was prescribed until the Claimant expressly requested something he had previously tried (albeit not prescribed for him at the time) a month later.[82]As a result, the Claimant has failed to satisfy the burden on him in relation to showing he met the definition of a disabled person prior to the end of September 2024.[83]All of the things said to arise from the Claimant’s alleged disability for the purposes of the section 15 claim predate that, because they were:a. The Claimant committed a criminal offence (March 2023 and March 2024);b. The Claimant did not understand he was expected to keep his employer updated about the criminal process (prior to August 2024);c. He was signed off work with stress and anxiety (June 2024).[84]The first PCP in the reasonable adjustment claim was related to the second something arising above. The fourth PCP related to the first.[85]Accordingly those claims must fail.[86]The allegations of harassment also predate the end of September 2024 and appear to “relate” to the Claimant’s sickness absence in June 2024.[87]The reasonable adjustment claims in relation to the second and third PCPs potentially survive for the period of October 2024 despite relating, as they principally did, to the period from August when the Claimant was suspended as they arguably continued until the Claimant’s dismissal on 29 October 2024. That said, they each suggested that the disadvantage arose due to the Claimant not understanding the disciplinary charges and / or processes and there did not appear to be any evidence of such cognitive impairment before me.[88]Nonetheless, I have to consider the period after the outcome of the Claimant’s grievance on 19 September 2024 which appeared to be the time in his statement where, at the time of writing it at least, he alleged the most substantial adverse effects, although the majority of them remained unsupported by medical evidence.[89]That medical evidence only recorded sleeping problems and low mood in October 2024, both of which improved significantly and rapidly once medicated, albeit the dose was increased a month later.[90]I accept that sleep is a normal day to day activity and, in any event, without it, there will be knock on impairments. As a result and despite my reservations about the Claimant’s credibility expressed earlier, I am prepared to accept that at least some of the additional effects he raised, such as the impact on his social life, did arise, to some extent at least, despite not being recorded by his GP or objectively verifiable and despite the fact that he was still able to attend his disciplinary hearing.[91]However, those effects were only short term due to the significant positive effects of the medication which were not only recorded by the GP but also shown by the Claimant’s ability to promptly submit his appeal, attend that appeal, enter early conciliation, bring this claim, and, indeed, another. To his considerable credit, he was also able to obtain agency work and continue to provide for himself thereafter.[92]The Claimant says that he remains on medication and speculates as to the likely relapse of his symptoms were he to stop. I am hampered by the complete absence of medical evidence on this. It does not even confirm the ongoing prescriptions, although I have no reason to doubt the Claimant that they have continued.[93]With his history of, at most, a few short term, minor, reactive mental health episodes, it could not be said that, as of October 2024, it was “likely” in common parlance, that the effects this time would be more substantial and last 12 months or more.[94]However, I am required to interpret “likely” as meaning “could well happen” and the Claimant’s evidence is that he has been on the medication for over a year now, so a long term effect has happened. If it has happened, it arguably could well have happened from the outset.[95]That submission has some merit. However, the burden of proof is on the Claimant and without any medical evidence supporting what he says about substantial adverse effects continuing, his objectively verifiable actions suggesting otherwise and without medical evidence addressing matters such asa. Whether he remains on medicationb. Whether it was “likely” in October 2024 that he would remain impaired for 12 months or morec. What the impact would be on him absent the medication I cannot say that the burden has been met.[96]That is not least because the very significant adverse effects alleged by the Claimant are contradicted by the medical record suggesting a rapid improvement in symptoms in October 2024.[97]Moreover, the mere fact that the Claimant may well remain on medication is not, it seems to me, sufficient for him to establish substantial long term effects in its absence.[98]In those circumstances I also do not consider that the Claimant has established that he was disabled as defined in October or November 2024.[99]Even if I were wrong on that, there was no evidence of cognitive impairment during that period so as to found the remaining reasonable adjustment claims.[100]His claim for unfair dismissal is unaffected by this decision and will proceed to the hearing which can be reduced to 3 days.[101]The dates for compliance with the other directions of EJ Maxwell are extended by 3 months.