Mr MK Howells v E-ACT, a Company Limited by Guarantee: 1301795/2017
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 1301795/2017Venue BirminghamHearing 14, 15, 16 & 18 May 2018
Between
Mr MK HowellsClaimantE-ACT, a Company Limited by GuaranteeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge LloydMs C Johal (instructed by Lay Representative) for claimantMr J Meichen (instructed by Counsel) for respondentIn person for claimantMr P Wilson (instructed by Counsel) for respondentDate 21 May 2018
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was not unfairly dismissed. His claim fails.[2]The claimant’s claims of discrimination because of disability and/or age are unproven; and they are dismissed. The tribunal dismisses the claimant’s claims in their entirety. Employment Judge Lloyd 21 May 2018 Case Number 1301795.2017 1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN Claimant Respondent Mr MK Howells AND EACT, a Company Limited by Guarantee
REASONS
[1]Full reasons were given orally at the hearing on 23 February 2018, but I accidentally stated at the start of the judgment that the claimant was a disabled person from in or about October 2015. In fact, I had found that the claimant had a mental impairment which was having a substantial adverse effect on his ability to Case Number 1301795.2017 2 carry out normal day to day activities from in or about October 2015, but I went on to say that this effect had lasted for more than 12 months by the time of the alleged act of discrimination, namely 26 May 2017. In making those findings I was referring to section 6(1)(b) and schedule 1 paragraph 2 of the 2010 Act.[2]For the avoidance of any doubt, I find that the effect of the impairment was likely to last for at least 12 months by no later than early April 2016.[3]The burden of proof is on the claimant and there was little medical evidence of how long his illness was likely to last at any given point, but taking account of Dr Hall’s report from January 2013 at page 67-68 (which suggests that any future absence was likely to be prolonged) and that by March 2016 the claimant was being given repeat prescriptions of Citalopram 20mg, each prescription being for 8 weeks at a time, I find that by early April 2016 the substantial adverse effect was likely to (in the sense of “could well”) have lasted (as it did) for up to a year (beginning from October 2015). The claimant was therefore a disabled person within the meaning of the 2010 Act by early April 2016 and continued to be so until the “relevant time” in May 2017.[4]I should also note that, at the hearing on 23 February 2018, part way through the hearing it became apparent to me that the “relevant time” as defined in paragraph 5(vi) the case management order of 11 October 2017 was incorrect – I gave the parties a copy of Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall [2008] EWCA Civ 4, and both parties agreed that the point in time at which the question of whether the claimant was disabled was to be assessed was the date of the alleged discrimination (26 May 2017) rather than April 2016, as this was not an allegation of discrimination arising from past (but rather continuing) disability.