Mr N Al Ebadi v The Home Office: 3303726/2024 and others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 3303726/2024, 3306360/2024, 6031291/2025
Between
Mr N Al EbadiClaimantThe Home OfficeRespondent
Before
Employment Judge Shastri-HurstIn person for claimantMs R Mellor (instructed by counsel) for respondentDate 28 July 2026
JUDGMENT
[1]The claimant was, for the relevant period of August 2023 to April 2025, disabled by way of migraines and a neurodivergence (suspected ADHD);[2]The claimant was not disabled by way of anxiety during the relevant period.
REASONS
[1]The claimant has been employed by the respondent since 23 June 2014 as a Border Force Higher Officer. He was recently posted to Belgium, moving there on 21 September 2025.[2]The claimant has presented three claims to the Tribunal, which have been case managed to date by Employment Judge George and have been referred to within these proceedings as follows: 2.1. 3303726/2024 Claim 1 (issued; 5 April 2024); 2.2. 3306360/2024 Claim 2 (issued; 2 July 2024); 2.3. 6031291/2025 Claim 3 (issued 24 August 2025).[3]To the extent necessary, I will maintain that nomenclature within this Judgment. Claim 1 forms part of a multiple that has been allocated to Employment Judge George. That multiple arises due to complaints amongst the workforce regarding the Heathrow Change Programme. The other two claims were brought latterly by the claimant and it has been decided that they will not be consolidated with Claim 1.[4]Within his three claims, the claimant relies on five conditions as being disabilities for the purposes of his disability discrimination claims: 4.1. ADHD; 4.2. Anxiety; 4.3. Haglund Deformity in both feet; 4.4. 4.5. Migraines.[5]The respondent accepts that the Haglund Deformity and IBS are conditions That therefore leaves the three remaining conditions as being contested: those three conditions are therefore the subject of this Judgment. The regarding disability is August 2023 to April 2025.[6]This hearing was originally listed for December 2025, however it could not go ahead at that time and so was relisted for today. Within her Order and Summary from 12 January 2026 (page 10 of the bundle, paragraphs 3-5), status to be dealt with by any judge so as not to hold up proceedings. She listed the preliminary hearing for today accordingly.[7]Today, I had the benefit of a bundle of 570 pages: the nomenclature for [X] within this Judgment. That bundle includes at [100]-[107]. I also had the benefit of a Skeleton Argument from the respondent on the matter of disability status prepared for use in the multiple claim. The respondent had also provided me with a Case Summary, setting out the relative position of
Findings of fact
[8]The claimant has been employed by the respondent since 23 June 2014 and had worked at the Heathrow Primary Control Point until he was Hub on 29 April 2024. In September 2025, he was redeployed again to undertake a role in Belgium.[9]During his employment with the respondent, the claimant sought fit notes from his GP for the following periods, all of which marked him as not fit for work during the specified periods: 9.1. 11 June to 9 July 2021 stress at work [201]; 9.2. 29 August to 18 September 2021 stress at work/IBS [199]; 9.3. 24 April to 8 May 2023 work related stress [191] 9.4. 10 May to 29 May 2023 work related stress [191]; 9.5. 30 May to 11 June 2023 work related stress [190]; 9.6. 12 June to 31 July 2023 work related stress [189].[10]The claimant had a prolonged period of sick leave in 2023, from 19 April to 1 August 2023, returning on a phased return on 2 August 2023 [247].11. 11.1. 16 March 2021 [240]; 11.2. 28 June 2023 - [243]; 11.3. 5 October 2023 - [247]; 11.4. 12 August 2024 [250].12. -term sickness absence in 2023 led to a Formal Sickness Absence Review process being undertaken, the outcome of which the claimant appealed. He also entered multiple grievances in 2024.[13]As above, the claimant seeks to rely on three conditions as disabilities. I have addressed the facts related to each condition separately. ADHD[14]The claimant does not yet have a diagnosis for ADHD. The claimant explained that he had tried to get an ADHD diagnostic appointment via work however, with being posted overseas in Belgium, the claimant believes that the Heathrow region wanted to offset the costs to the Europe branch. In short, he has not yet had a diagnosis through work. He did however have another OH appointment in January 2026 at which point his line manager suggested going through the NHS (this OH report is not in the bundle). The claimant did attempt the NHS route; however, this came to a standstill. As of the January 2026 OH report, the claimant has been treated at work (in Belgium) as if he has ADHD, with adjustments such as noise cancelling headphones, Loop earplugs, and a sit/stand desk: all for his presumed ADHD. He has not gone through the private route as he has a family member who did this: it took that individual a year to get a diagnosis, and they have been informed that no medication can be prescribed unless they have an NHS diagnosis anyway. 15. asking for medication, b - [185].[16]Although he could not really remember, the claimant accepted in crossexamination that it was likely that he asked the GP to record some information about possible ADHD as he knew he would need to prove this was a disability for the purpose of his Tribunal claim.[17]The note of 16 May 2024 also provides the following detail (within a referral regarding Anxiety Disorder): other people speaking trivial jobs getting [sic] in the way of leaving for an appointment or work Family dynamics two brothers had ADHD he thinks father may have also had this mum is a worrier he was the eldest and often stood in for his parents with siblings[18]The only other mention of ADHD in the medical documentation I have seen is in the OH report of 12 August 2024 [252]: - ...I undertook an online ADHD screen with [the claimant] today the[19]That OH report recommended to the respondent that it refer the claimant to LEXXIC for an ADHD diagnostic assessment and an ADHD workplace needs assessment to determine what specific workplace adjustments may - [253].[20]The claimant accepted that, prior to being alerted to the possibility of ADHD in Spring 2024, he had not been presenting at his GP surgery expressing difficulties with the symptoms he now lists in his Disability Impact Statement . However, he states now that he considers that he has had ADHD since childhood: he has looked back and can see the traits and symptoms he now attributes to ADHD in him throughout his life.[21]The claimant is a competent, effective and valued member of staff; he confirmed to me that his productivity whilst working is good and he is practised at working in high pressure environments. The respondent has not raised any conduct or capability issues with him. The claimant said that he has been spoken to a few times about his punctuality by his line manager, but that is the only issue that has arisen in terms of conduct or performance and was not raised in any formal capacity.[22]The claimant explained to me that there was a time when some core duties were removed from him, to be replaced by other duties. However, the symptoms thought to be related to ADHD (on his own case). In other words, the change in work tasks was not a reasonable adjustment to ameliorate any symptoms of ADHD.[23]IS, as a result of ADHD - [101]: talking excessively; Forgetfulness, distractibility, irritability, and poor timekeeping; Negative impact on personal and professional relationship; the claimant has a very limited social circle; Impatience and difficulty waiting or tolerating slow processes; Mental fatigue and bouts of hyperfocus, during which other responsibilities are ignored; Missing deadlines or experiencing extreme stress trying to meet them last minute; Severe time blindness and poor planning; Forgetting to bring meals to work; Impulsive purchases later regretted, including financial strain on the household; Beginning tasks (eg cleaning or chores) but getting distracted and leaving multiple tasks unfinished; Zoning out during conversations; Feeling constantly busy but achieving little;[24]In terms of coping mechanisms and treatment, the claimant sets out in his DIS the following: Use of to-do lists and reminders. Purchased a fidget device. Requested a reasonable adjustment from the Respondent on 26 April 2025 (noisecancelling headphones), which has not yet been actioned [but has now]. Uses an Echo Dot to set kitchen timers to avoid burning food.[25]In cross-examination, the claimant was asked about missing deadlines and experiencing extreme stress trying to meet them at the last minute. He expanded on this, stating that whether it was a job application or a work Teams meeting, the claimant would just always submit it late or attend late. He explained, taking a Teams meeting as an example, that he would see the clock turn to the meeting time and still not be able to log on; he just had to be late.[26]He was also asked about burning food and using timers. It was suggested that these were all things neurotypical people (particularly those in high performing roles) may well struggle with too. The claimant explained that, although neurotypical people may experience these symptoms every now and again, for a neurodivergent person, these are symptoms experienced daily.[27]The cross-examination of the claimant did not particularly stray to the other suggested symptoms set out in the list above.[28]I have seen no evidence to suggest that the suspected ADHD affects the . However, I accept that missing deadlines and experiencing stress trying to meet them at the last minute is something that affects both professional and personal matters. For example, the claimant explained he had missed a deadline to appeal a parking ticket. Migraines[29]In relation to migraines, the claimant was diagnosed with migraines in 2001 at the age of 13 [170].[30]Migraines are not referenced a huge amount within the medical documents to which I have been referred. Within two of the three OH reports I have seen in the bundle, migraines are mentioned as set out below:[31]Within the 5 October report at [248]: migraines since childhood. ... [The claimant] informed me that this condition that usually occurs 2 to 3 times per year 32. 2023 Within the 12 August 2024 report at [251]: approximately every 3 months, which affects him on his rest days. [The claimant] informed me that he last saw his GP about this condition 2 years ago and he has medication to take when his symptoms start to avoid it becoming a more serious[33]The GP notes provide little insight. However, , the notes list migraines with dates in February 2001 and 9 November 2023 [178]. There is one entry regarding migraines in the - [180]: Sumatriptan helped. Using Ibu also helps but suma more effective. No associated vomiting occ vision affected. Usually 1 every 2-3m. Stress trigger works at immigration.[34]There followed a prescription for Sumatriptan of 6 x 50mg tablets for when the claimant had an onset of symptoms. 35. migraines, I accept his evidence that this is because there is nothing that they can do to help. He knows what to expect and how to manage his migraines: there is nothing else that a GP could tell him or do for him to assist the situation. I accept this explanation as to why he does not attend the GP for his migraines and why there is little mention of migraines in his GP records.[36]Regarding medication, the claimant has been prescribed Sumatriptan on two occasions over a span of 23 years in 2002 [218] and 2025 [179]. He was also prescribed them as a one-off when he had attended an Urgent Care Centre in around 2023 due to an onset of a particularly bad migraine. He explained that he did not really use this when it was prescribed. Instead, he uses Nurofen Express at the onset of migraines; this seems to actually have a positive effect.[37]As above, the claimant was diagnosed with migraines in 2001 at the age of 13 [170]. At that precise time, the headaches were more of an annoyance, but he did from time to time get acute bouts of pain that would make him see stars or spots, vomit and just need to lie down. The claimant explained that, in more recent years, he suffers the following symptoms when he is about to have a migraine episode: 37.1. Blurred vision, followed by double vision; 37.2. Sometimes he experiences tingling/numbness in his hand, arm and upper lip; 37.3. After about 30 minutes of blurred vision, the pain then just hits; 37.4. He suffers severe head pain, starts overheating and sweating.[38]The claimant explained to me that all he can do then is go to bed, take painkillers, rest and sleep. He told me that this most severe period normally lasts for about 24 hours. The pain then eases to a lingering, less acute pain in his head that normally lasts 1 or 2 additional days. During this time he usually rests, sleeps and takes more pain-killers. He has been known to go back to work when the most acute part of the pain had worn off. However, the one occasion he told me about when he went back to work was because he felt pressure to get back to work as the line manager. He explained that du bedbound and This is which he lists the following symptoms - [106]: -3 months, often on rest days. Severe head pain causes the Claimant to be bedbound. During episodes, the Claimant cannot wash, dress, move, eat or perform any normal activities. Pain is extreme and affects ability to think or speak.[39]In terms of frequency, there is evidence within two Occupational Health [248] and [251] respectively. The respondent sought to suggest that this was an inconsistency. The claimant explained that he did not consider this to be the case. He does not keep a migraine diary, and so when talking to the OH Advisor he was estimating. Further, 3 times a year would be once every 4 months, which is not so far removed from once every 3 months. I am satisfied that there is no inconsistency in this evidence regarding frequency of migraine episodes, and the claimant was approximating as best he could at the time of providing his history.[40]No adjustments have been put in place at work for his migraines, but I accept his evidence that he usually suffers them on his rest days. He gets through his work periods, but then once he finishes work and has some rest days, that is often when his migraines strike. This explains why his absence record at work does not record any sickness due to migraines. Anxiety[41]There is evidence of a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder within the bundle on [185], from the GP records dated 16 May 2024; the claimant says he has suffered with anxiety for years and that it started in 2023 - [102] DIS.[42]In the GP notes for the 16 May 2024 appointment, the GP recorded the following: Picks the skin off his rt heel and also pulls out hair Stressed about work but he feels he always anticipates the worst outcome and then it happens he feels he may have [been] bullied at work He has been offered an ADHD assessment by work feels he always cuts into other people speaking trivial jobs getting [sic] in the way of leaving for an appointment or work Family dynamics two brothers had ADHD he thinks father may have also had this mum is a worrier he was the eldest and often stood in for his parents with siblings Not asking for medication but to put these in his notes Will refer to talking therapies he has been there in the past and has been told he has to be suicidal to have counselling. I will refer . 43. suspected ADHD.[44]Prior to May 2024, any issue regarding stress or anxiety symptoms has been labelled by his GP as ork-related stress or . 2023 on [188] to May 2024 when we see the diagnosis. The relevant entries are as follows: 44.1. 31 October 2023 reference to the claimant being stressed at work, but with no current suicidal ideation but told work counsellors - - [188] 44.2. 29 June 2023 feels he cannot return to work as gets intense anxiety when thinks of going back and feels he needs anxiety management strategies/coping skills before he is able to go back. He denies any - stress-related problem [189]; 44.3. 31 May 2023 stressors, he has been spending quality time with family, eating healthily and being active whilst he has been off work, denies any suicidal thoughts/intent - - [190/191]; 44.4. 10 May 2023 using his time to do exercise, spend time with family. Is trying a lot of the lifestyle things from discussion. Feels his work environment is toxic - [191]; 44.5. 24 April 2023 has work related stress. ... He feels that he has been neglecting himself and has been irritable at home ... from work the last week citing work related stress and feels so much better ... I feel this is more stress than depression. He says he just needs a break - stress at work [191]; 44.6. 21 September 2021 s at work feels unsupported...had been off work 11/6/21 9/7/ went off sick again 29/8/21 returned to work 19/9/21 - [199]; 44.7. 28 June 2021 supported at work, getting headache/migraine, insomnia, anxiety stress at work [178].[45]In terms of the 2021 period, he claimant explained that he had experienced one episode of work-related stress previously, which was during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is referred to in the medical notes, in the - [186]:[46]In terms of treatment, the claimant has undertaken two courses of Talking Therapies with Berkshire Healthcare, as follows - [143-149], [150-154]: 46.1. May 2023 to November 2023; and 46.2. July 2024 to January 2025.[47]He also says in his DIS that he undertook a course of CBT from 11 September 2024 to 27 December 2024. 48. periods is as follows - [148] and [154]: Date PHQ9 (out of 27) GAD7 (out of 21) 30 May 2023 [148] 6 (mild) 7 (mild) 25 Oct 2023 [146] 16 (moderate/severe) 13 (moderate) 14 Nov 2023 [148] 6 (mild) 11 (moderate) 18 July 2024 [154] 12 (moderate) 12 (moderate) 6 January 2025 [154] 9 (mild) 12 (moderate)[49]Within the Talking Therapies report from October 2023 at [146], the claimant reported: symptoms that are significantly impacting upon their quality of life. They described experiencing symptoms of low mood, low energy, poor appetite/overeating, disturbed sleep, persistent and uncontrollable worry, anxiety, restlessness, irritability, difficulty concentrating along with suicidal ideation .[50]The report went on: established that there is a current risk of suicide. [The claimant] reported experiencing anxiety, depression, personal stress, work-related stress and workplace bullying which [the claimant] feels is contributing to them experiencing suicidal ideation. ...[51]Considering the evidence of the OH Advisor, I have seen a report at [243] that was written on 28 June 2023, due to the claimant having been off work since 19 April 2023. This report records the claimant reporting as follows: starting his work. He mentioned a month of absence in 2020 for similar reasons. He cites multiple organisational problems as the reason for the decline in his mental health. A mental health screening tool performed today returned scores . ... [The claimant] is currently fit for work. It is, however, clear that a return to similar workplace stressors would be associated with a further decline in his mental health. ... A management meeting to discuss these numerous problems may yield a return to work plan. ... [The claimant] perceives a decline in his mental health due to problems in thier workplace which are outlined above. ... [The claimant] states that his mental health decline is wholly related to workplace problems .[52]A follow up OH report dated 5 October 2023 is found at [247]. This report for managing his mental health better. The OH professional records the following at [248] stress: at work related to the impending organisational changes and because he has been issued with a warning for absence, despite being tol .[53]A further OH report is provided on 12 August 2024 - [250]. In that report, a general explanation of Anxiety Disorder is set out: I note that the report does not set out any symptoms specifically experienced by the claimant. The OH specialist the records:[54]The OH specialist records their view that the claimant is fit to return to work [252].[55]In terms of symptoms, the claimant referred to struggling with basic decisions and having stress every single day. However, I note that this was expressed in the present tense, and I accept that his mental health has declined again in recent months. However, I have to focus my decisionmaking on the evidence from the relevant period (August 2023 to April 2025).[56]Regarding the effects on his day to day living, the claimant in his DIS listed the following: Difficulty concentrating, irritability, forgetfulness, and brain fog. Impact on work performance: missed deadlines, fear of judgement, and decreased focus. Fatigue, muscle tension, and general loss of motivation. Persistent overthinking and catastrophic thinking.[57]In relation to anxiety, the claimant again pointed to leaving everything to the last minute; like the symptoms he described for his suspected ADHD. Ms Mellor put it to the claimant that he had not mentioned in his Disability Impact Statement daily activities such as struggling with shopping, selfcare, getting up in the morning, sleep patterns, and driving (which are standard effects we see in the Tribunal regarding mental ill health). In answer, the a domestic level. This overlaps with the evidence the claimant gave relating to his ADHD symptoms. Legal framework The Equality Act 2010 58. (1) A person (P) has a disability ifa. P has a physical or mental impairment, andb. The impairment has a substantial and longability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. 59. - EqA: 2(1) The effect of an impairment is long-term if (a) It has lasted for at least 12 months, (b) It is likely to last for at least 12 months, or (c) it is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected. to carry out normal day-to-day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if that effect is likely to recur.[60]In relation to medication, Schedule 1 sets out: 5. Effect of medical treatment An impairment is to be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities if Measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and But for that, it would be likely to have that effect. or other aid.61. minor or trivial . The 2011 Guidance62. taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of63. B1. The requirement that an adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities should be a substantial one reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people.[64]In terms of coping paragraph B7 provides: B7. Account should be taken of how far a person can reasonably be expected to modify his or her behaviour, for example by use of a coping or avoidance strategy, to prevent or reduce the effects of an impairment on normal day-to-day activities. In some instances, a coping or avoidance strategy might alter the effects of the impairment to the extent that they are no longer substantial and the person would no longer meet the definition of disability. In other instances, even with the coping or avoidance strategy, there is still an adverse effect on the carrying out of normal day-to-day activities.[65]In terms of the case in which there is more than one impairment, paragraph B6 sets out as follows: B6. A person may have more than one impairment, any one of which alone would not have a substantial effect. In such a case, account should be taken of whether the impairments together have a substantial effect overall on the carry out normal day-to-day activities. For example, a minor impairment which affects physical co-ordination and an irreversible but minor injury to a leg which affects mobility, when taken together, might have a substantial effect on the -to-day activities. ...66. - follows: C4. In assessing the likelihood of an effect lasting for 12 months, account should be taken of the circumstances at the time the alleged discrimination took place. Anything which occurs after that time will not be relevant in assessing this likelihood. Account should also be taken of both the typical length of such an effect on an individual, and any relevant factors specific to this individual (for example, general state of health or age).67. -toD3. In general, day-to-day activities are things people do on a regular or daily basis, and examples include shopping, reading and writing, having a conversation or using the telephone, watching television, getting washed and dressed, preparing and eating food, carrying out household tasks, walking and travelling by various forms of transport, and taking part in social activities. Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities, and study and education- related activities, such as interacting with colleagues, following instructions, using a computer, driving, carrying out interviews, preparing written documents, and keeping to a timetable or a shift pattern.68. -toat paragraph D19 of the Guidance, it states the following: D19. day-to-day activities that involve aspects such as remembering to do things, organising their thoughts, planning a course of action and carrying it out, taking in new knowledge, and understanding spoken or written information. This includes considering whether the person has cognitive difficulties or learns to do things significantly more slowly than a person who does not have an impairment. Case-law[69]The legislative test can be broken down into a 4-stage test as set out by the Goodwin v Patent Office 1999 ICR 302:(1) The impairment condition Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?(2) The adverse effect condition day activities in one of the respects set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, and does it have an adverse effect?(3) The substantial condition(4) The long-term effect -term?[70]The burden of proof in proving disability status is on the claimant Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth [2000] IRLR 699.[71]In consideration of whether any adverse effects are substantial, the focus must be on what the claimant cannot do, as opposed to concentrating on what he can do Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railways Ltd UKEAT/0316/12, paragraph 15.[72]Regarding the question of whether any adverse effects are likely to last 12 SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle [2009] IRLR 746. Furthermore, when looking at whether effects are likely to last 12 months or more, the Tribunal is not entitled to take into account events that occur following the relevant period All Answers Ltd v Mr W [2021] IRLR 612.[73]In Paterson v Commissioner of Police and the Metropolis [2007] ICR 1522, the EAT set out its understanding of the comparison exercise to be done for the purposes of this part of the test of disability: compare the effect on the individual of the disability, and this involves considering how he in fact carries out the activity compared with how he would do if not suffering the impairment. If that difference is more than the kind of difference one might expect taking a cross-section of the population, then the effects are 74. individual, rather than comparing how the individual is disadvantaged in relation to the general population.[75]The EAT in the case of Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council 2017 ICR 601 was concerned with the question as to whether conditions described as per HHJ Richardson at paragraph 54 onwards:54. Underhill P said: made by the tribunal, as summarised at para 33(3) above, between two states of affairs which can produce broadly similar symptoms: those symptoms can be described in various ways, but we will be sufficiently understood if we refer to them as symptoms of low mood and anxiety. The first state of affairs is a mental illness - or, if you prefer, a mental condition which is conveniently referred to as the Act. The second is not characterised as a mental condition at all but simply as a reaction to adverse circumstances (such as problems at work) or - if the jargon may be forgiven - that distinction could be questioned at the level of deep theory; and even if it is accepted in principle the borderline between the two states of affairs is bound often to be very blurred in practice. But we are equally clear that it reflects a distinction which is routinely made by clinicians - it is implicit or explicit in the evidence of each of Dr Brener, Dr MacLeod and Dr Gill in this case - and which should in principle be recognised for the purposes of the Act. We accept that it may be a difficult distinction to apply in a particular case; and the difficulty can be exacerbated by the looseness with which some medical professionals, and most lay people, us cause a real problem in the context of a claim under the Act. This is because of the long-term effect requirement. If, as we recommend at para 40(2) above, a tribunal to carry out normal day-to-day activities has been substantially impaired by symptoms characteristic of depression for 12 months or more, it would in most rather than simply a reaction to adverse circumstances: it is a common sense observation that such reactions are not normally long-55. This passage has, we believe, stood the test of time and proved of great assistance to Employment Tribunals. We would add one comment to it, directed in particular to work related issues can result in real mental impairment for many individuals, especially those who are susceptible to anxiety and depression.56. Although reactions to adverse circumstances are indeed not normally long-lived, experience shows that there is a class of case where a reaction to circumstances perceived as adverse can become entrenched; where the person concerned will not give way or compromise over an issue at work, and refuses to return to work, yet in other respects suffers no or little apparent adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. A doctor may be more likely to refer to the presentation of such an entrenched position as stress than as anxiety or depression. An Employment Tribunal is not bound to find that there is a mental impairment in such a case. Unhappiness with a decision or a colleague, a tendency to nurse grievances, or a refusal to compromise (if these or similar findings are made by an Employment Tribunal) are not of themselves mental impairments: they may simply reflect mental impairment must of course be considered by an Employment Tribunal with great care; so must any evidence of adverse effect over and above an unwillingness to return to whether there is a mental impairment is one for the Employment Tribunal to asses Conclusions Migraines
Conclusions
[76]The claimant has a diagnosis of migraines. Although a diagnosis is not essential to prove an impairment, it is helpful and relevant to the issue. I found the claimant to be credible in the evidence he gave as to the symptoms and frequency of his migraines.[77]I accept that he has a physical impairment of migraines, and has experienced these migraines since he was 13 years old. 78. of his migraine episodes, and as I have recorded at paragraphs 37-39 above. I accept that those symptoms are adverse, and are such as to have dayto-day activities. The effects are therefore substantial. For example, he told me he could do nothing more than lie in bed, rest and sleep when a migraine is at full force. This is even with the benefit of some medication. Clearly the need to go to bed means that the claimant is not capable of going about his daily life for those periods.[79]I conclude that these effects are long-term: 79.1. The effects have lasted for longer than 12 months, due to the number of years over which the claimant has experienced those effects (he has experienced them since adolescence); and/or, 79.2. The effects are likely to recur, given that the episodes reliably occur every few months.[80]As such, I am satisfied that all four elements of the test of disability are met, and that the claimant was at the relevant time disabled by way of migraines. ADHD[81]I accept that there is no diagnosis of ADHD, however diagnosis is not essential (albeit helpful) to the finding of an impairment. I accept the symptoms as being consistent with such a diagnosis. I also consider it highly relevant that the OH specialist undertook a test with the claimant that was of ADHD and recommended a formal assessment and workplace assessment to consider reasonable adjustments. I will return to the question of impairment following consideration of the effects of this condition. 82. alleged ADHD.[83]The main issue that the claimant gave evidence about was his time management and organisation. I accept his evidence that he has difficulty with these.[84]In terms of the other matters the claimant cites as symptoms in his DIS and set out at paragraph 16 above, there is limited supportive evidence of many of those issues. Regardless of the label attached to any condition, the claimant has not historically complained to his GP about (for example) forgetfulness, a reduced social circle, impatience, impulsivity, and so on. relevant that he has been spoken to regarding his punctuality at work.[85]Due to those corroborative pieces of evidence, I accept that the claimant does suffer the following effects undertake daily life of (as cited from his DIS): 85.1. Frequently blurting out responses interrupting others, speaking out of turn, and talking excessively; 85.2. -keeping; 85.3. Missing deadlines or experiencing extreme stress trying to meet then last minute; 85.4. Severe time-blindness and poor planning.[86]In terms of whether those adverse effects are substantial, I remind myself that this means more than minor or trivial and that the definition of disability is intended to focus on limitations beyond that found within the normal differences existing in the population.[87]I note that I accept that the claimant may well suffer the other effects listed in his DIS, however they are not substantial enough to be mentioned by the claimant to his GP or to the OH Advisor. As such, I consider that, even if he does suffer those other effects, they are not substantial.[88]I accept that there are people who could be described as neurotypical who will experience some of the effects the claimant describes, to some extent. daily occurrence. That, to me, takes these effects beyond that which may be experienced within the normal differences in society. I conclude that the effects set out above are substantial and adverse. 89. - effects, but just did not recognise them for what he now suspects they are. I accept that neurodivergences such as ADHD are life-long. I accept the to exist are long-term as he has always experienced them, he has just not previously sought to attach a label to them.[90]Returning then to where I started, with the impairment. I consider that the effects/symptoms I have found are consistent with those experienced by some people with ADHD; they fall within the scope of possible effects. I accept that, although not a diagnosis, the OH specialist has indicated that the claimant is likely to have ADHD. I accept that there is a family trait of on the balance of probabilities , I accept that the claimant has a mental impairment of a neurodiversity (suspected ADHD), and had that impairment throughout the relevant period. Anxiety[91]I consider it relevant that all references within the GP notes to any mental health issue prior to May 2025 were to work-related stress or stress at work. A GP works on the basis of the history given by their patient: throughout the history of which I have seen evidence, the claimant constantly and consistently blamed work, and only work, for his decline in mental health. 92. mental health had any effect on his home life or relationships. Furthermore, view that it was work that was the problem, nothing else. I note particularly the entries from 10 and 31 May 2023 and 29 June 2023 (see paragraph 44 above). This is also the view that the claimant expressed to the OH specialist on more than one occasion, and the view he set out in his DIS at[93]Following Herry stress reaction to adverse circumstances, namely issues at work, as opposed to a clinical mental health condition.[94]I accept that the claimant experienced some periods of stress, approximately: 94.1. June to September 2021; 94.2. April to October 2023; and, 94.3. May 2024 to January 2025.[95]I conclude that those were three discrete periods of stress/anxiety caused by work issues. When the claimant was off work in 2023, he does not appear to have suffered symptoms, other than when contemplating having to return to work (again, see summary of medical evidence at paragraph 44). The suggestion from both the claimant and the OH specialist that the removal of the perceived obstacles at work woul supports this conclusion.[96]I accept that, come May 2024, there is a diagnosis of Anxiety Disorder, but that in itself is not conclusive. Taking all the evidence and all the circumstances into account, I am not satisfied that the claimant had an impairment of anxiety at the relevant time. I conclude that he was experiencing episodes of reactive work-related stress: that is not sufficient to amount to a disability (see Herry).[97]Furthermore, in terms of the specific effects, I am not satisfied that specific effects arose from an Anxiety Disorder, but consider that they may well have Returning to the there is significant overlap with the symptoms that the claimant described for Anxiety and ADHD.[98]For completeness, I am not satisfied that the claimant experienced longterm effects. Given the reactive nature of his stress, I am not satisfied that the claimant has proven that any effects were long-term, as opposed to being disparate episodes of work-related stress.[99]I am therefore not satisfied that the claimant was disabled by way of anxiety during the relevant period. Post-script[100]I apologise for the delay in this Judgment reaching the parties. This was in part due to other judicial workload and commitments and part due to non-working days. I am grateful to the parties for their patience. Approved by: