Mr S Athwal v Morrison Water Services Ltd: 6007516/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 6007516/2025
Between
Mr S AthwalClaimantMorrison Water Services LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge M SiddiqueIn person for claimantDate 5 May 2026
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Tribunal is that at the material time the claimant was disabled as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
REASONS
[1]The claimant is pursuing claims against the respondent for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. In his claims he says that “Subject to medical assessment, I have been informed that I could qualify as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, given the prolonged nature of stress and anxiety and its effects on my ability to conduct day to day activities”. The respondent does not accept that the claimant is disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010.[2]The claimant was ordered to provide medical evidence and a statement about disability, which he duly did. Having reviewed this evidence, the respondent’s position remained the same. At a preliminary hearing on 18 November 2025 Employment Judge Butler, listed a preliminary hearing in public.[3]This hearing was held to determine whether or not the claimant was disabled at the material time within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. Procedure, documents and evidence heard[4]The hearing was held in person at Nottingham. The respondent was represented and the claimant attended in person.[5]A bundle of documents had been prepared. This included the claimant’s medical records and an impact statement he had prepared on his disability. On the day, the Respondent also submitted a skeleton argument and a medical evidence chronology. I gave the claimant the opportunity to consider that evidence.[6]The respondent cross-examined the claimant on his evidence. The respondent and the claimant made oral submissions. Before reaching my decision I also asked the parties to address me on recurrent conditions, as it appeared potentially relevant in this case.
Findings of Fact
[7]The claimant submitted his claim form on 4 March 2025 following early conciliation between 27 February and 4 March 2025. He was employed as Head of Financial Planning and analysis from 29 November 2021 to 27 February 2025 when his role was made redundant.[8]The first mention of work stress and anxiety appears in the GP records dated 21 November 2023. In a face-to-face consultation it is noted that he is struggling with work stress due to very long hours, and that this is impacting his health and he is feeling increasingly anxious. That it is impacting his family as they are having to go on holiday without him, because he has to work. That he self-certified as unwell for the previous 5 days and now wishes to be signed off, as it is affecting his appetite, he is having poor sleep, feeling exhausted and burnt out. The plan included to self-refer to IAPT, consider activities to help health such as exercise and relaxation techniques.[9]The next contact with the GP, via an online application, identified within the notes, is on 22 December 2023 when the claimant requests a further fit note until 31 January 2024.[10]The claimant’s impact statement provides little detail about this period off work, save to say that the continuous long hours, unrealistic expectations and lack of support “wore me down over time”.[11]On 28 December 2023 his GP contacted him to see how he was. He says he was waiting to speak to Occupational Health, which would take place in January. It notes he is able to talk to his wife and close friends, is attending a gym 3-4 times a week, he reported he gets anxious and tired in the morning and late afternoon, sleep is very broken and is waking up in the night. He indicated he did not want medication for mood or his sleep. Following this consultation the GP issued a fit note on 28 December 2023 because of “Work related stress- causing anxiety” until 31/01/2024. The Claimant forwarded that fit note to the respondent, by email on 28 December 2023.[12]In evidence the Claimant accepted that he did not pursue NHS treatment such as medication or therapy for his condition, despite this being offered to him. However, he indicated that he wanted to pursue alternative medicine, rather than western medication. He was asked about evidence about this treatment, he indicated that he had receipts for treatment but had not provided these as he had submitted other evidence such as GP records and fit notes which he believed proved he had a medical condition of stress and anxiety. Whilst I accept that alternative therapies were not mentioned in his impact statement, I bear in mind the fact that the Claimant is a litigant in person and would not necessarily have known that it was relevant to mention this. Importantly, when questioned at the hearing about the therapy undertaken he was able to give a relatively detailed and convincing account of engaging in acupuncture and cupping, approximately half a dozen times between November 2023 and February 2025, which lasted approximately an hour where there were various checks, including of the tongue, and 45 minutes of acupuncture and cupping and then being given herbal tea to take twice a day for 7 days. I found he did engage in alternative therapy to manage his condition during this period.[13]There is no indication in the medical notes that he sought further NHS assistance with his mental health until November 2024, when he was informed about the risk of redundancy.[14]The claimant contacted the respondent, by email on the evening of 11 November 2024, saying that after a meeting that morning when he was informed that his role was at risk of redundancy, he was extremely upset, disappointed, distraught, completely let down and emotionally drained. He indicated that he would be self-certifying himself as off work for at least 5 days as the decision was causing him stress and anxiety.[15]The Claimant contacted the GP for various matters unrelated to his mental health but he next approached his GP on 19 November 2024 in respect of stress and anxiety, due to being told that that his role was at risk of redundancy. He reported that he was told about this on 11 November 2024, that he had been off work since the 12 November 2024 by self-certifying and was now requesting a fit note from 19 November 2024 to 17 December 2024.[16]In order to issue a fit note his GP arranged a face-to-face consultation and he was seen on 20 November 2024. He confirmed he was feeling anxious, that he was in ongoing discussions with his employer about compensation but needed time off work to-re-evaluate. That he was getting support mentally from family and employer relations. He was issued a fit note on that day for “Work related stress causing anxiety” from 19/11/2024 until 16/12/2024.[17]The GP notes provided cover the period up to 26 June 2025 but there is no further mention of any anxiety or stress related difficulties.[18]In his impact statement the claimant says he experiences depression, persistent anxiety, sleep disturbance and severe loss of confidence. He also says that the GP “considered referring me for therapy” and that he experienced panic attacks, difficulty concentrating and a lasting sense of being overwhelmed. However, there is no indication in the medical notes that he was considered to have depression. There is no indication that the doctor was referring him to therapy, instead it was the case that he was given details to self-refer himself to therapy. However, he confirmed that he did not self-refer. Whilst the Claimant says he experienced panic attacks there is no indication in his GP notes that he reported panic attacks.[19]The claimant also says he developed stress related hypertension and prescribed medication but there is no mention of hypertension in the medical evidence provided. The Claimant in evidence clarified that he effectively self-assessed or believed he had hypertension and received herbal tea/medication.[20]In this later evidence, the claimant attributed a wider range of symptoms to his condition, including depression, panic attacks and hypertension. I am not satisfied that those matters were established on the evidence before me. None of these features is supported by the contemporaneous GP records. The claimant also sought to link his urinary symptoms to stress and anxiety; however, there is no medical evidence to support that connection. On the contrary, the medical records at pages 86 and 107 indicate that those urinary difficulties were long-standing, originating in childhood and associated with structural abnormalities.[21]By contrast, there has been consistency in the claimant’s account of work-related stress and anxiety. That account is supported by the contemporaneous GP records and by his oral evidence, including evidence of steps taken to manage those symptoms through alternative therapies. I accept that evidence in relation to stress and anxiety.
The Law
[22]Section 6 Equality Act 2010 provides: (1) A person (P) has a disability if – (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities[23]The Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability states this at A3 in relation to the meaning of an impairment: “The definition requires that the effects which a person may experience must arise from a physical or mental impairment. The term mental or physical impairment should be given its ordinary meaning. It is not necessary for the cause of the impairment to be established, nor does the impairment have to be the result of an illness. In many cases, there will be no dispute whether a person has an impairment. Any disagreement is more likely to be about whether the effects of the impairment are sufficient to fall within the definition and in particular whether they are long-term. Even so, it may sometimes be necessary to decide whether a person has an impairment so as to be able to deal with the issues about its effects.”[24]At A5 the Guidance gives examples of impairments and these include “mental health conditions with symptoms such as anxiety, low mood, panic attacks” and “mental illnesses such as depression”.[25]In J v DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] ICR 1052 EAT, Underhill P (as he then was) set out the following principles in relation to the definition of “impairment”: “The first point concerns the legitimacy in principle of the kind of distinction 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 “clinical depression” and is undoubtedly an impairment within the meaning of 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 – “adverse life events”. We dare say that the value or validity of 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…and which should in principle be recognised for the purposes of the Act. We accept 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, use such terms as “depression” (“clinical” or otherwise), “anxiety” and “stress”. Fortunately, however, we would not expect those difficulties often to 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), a tribunal starts by considering the adverse effect issue and finds that the claimant’s ability 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 cases be likely to conclude that he or she was indeed suffering “clinical depression” rather than simply a reaction to adverse circumstances: it is a common sense observation that such reactions are not normally long lived.”[26]In Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Council [2017] ICR 610, HHJ Richardson, said this: “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 a person’s character or personality. Any medical evidence in support of a diagnosis of mental impairment must of course be considered by an employment tribunal with great care; so much any evidence of adverse effect over and above an unwillingness to return to work until an issue is resolved to the employee’s satisfaction, but in the end the question whether there is a mental impairment is one for the employment tribunal to assess.”[27]A “substantial” adverse effect is one that is “more than minor or trivial” (s. 212(1) EqA 2010). In determining whether an effect on normal day to day activities is substantial, a Tribunal should have regard to the time taken to carry out the activity (Guidance [B2]) and the way in which the activity is carried out (Guidance [B3]).[28]“Normal day-to-day activities” are things that people do on a regular or daily basis (Guidance [D2]), such as shopping, reading, writing, having a conversation, 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. They do not include activities which are only normal for a particular person or a small group of people (Guidance [D4]). They do not include highly specialised work activities which are not normal day-to day activities for most people (Guidance [D8]). Normal day-to-day activities can include general work-related activities [D3].[29]D16. Normal day-to-day activities also include activities that are required to maintain personal well-being or to ensure personal safety, or the safety of other people. Account should be taken of whether the effects of an impairment have an impact on whether the person is inclined to carry out or neglect basic functions such as eating, drinking, sleeping,[30]Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010 sets out further provisions relating to the determination of disability. Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 provides that the effect of an impairment will be “long term” if:(a)(b)(c) 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.[31]The question of whether an impairment is “likely” (in the sense of “it could well happen”) to last for at least 12 months falls to be determined based only on evidence that was available, and on the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time. The Tribunal is not entitled to have regard to events occurring after the date of the alleged discrimination to determine whether the effect did (or did not) last for 12 months; see McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431 at [23] – [24].[32]Paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 1 provides that if an impairment ceases to have a substantial adverse effect on a person’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities, it is to be treated as continuing to have that effect if it is likely (again in the sense of “it could well happen”) to recur. The likelihood of recurrence is again to be judged based on evidence available and circumstances prevailing at the relevant time (McDougall at [26]).
Discussion and conclusions
[33]Section 6 Equality Act 2010 requires the Tribunal to determine the following questions:(i) Whether the claimant had a physical or mental impairment.(ii) Whether that impairment had an adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.(iii) Whether any such adverse effect was substantial, meaning more than minor or trivial.(iv) Whether the substantial adverse effect was long term, in that it had lasted, or was likely to last, for at least 12 months, including by reason of likely recurrence.[34]I address each in turn. Impairment[35]Having made the findings of fact set out above, I find that during the relevant period the claimant suffered from a mental impairment within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010, namely a condition characterised by stress and anxiety, during the relevant period which I found to be from November 2023 to February 2025 when he was made redundant.[36]The contemporaneous medical records support the existence of such a condition from November 2023 onwards. While the claimant at times expressed his difficulties in lay terms and later overstated certain features of his condition, I am satisfied that there was a genuine mental impairment rather than ordinary or transitory stress. I do not accept that this was merely a normal reaction to day-to-day pressures at work. Adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities[37]I am satisfied that the claimant’s impairment had adverse effects on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. In particular, the evidence establishes significant difficulty with sleeping, persistent exhaustion, anxiety, and an inability to sustain work-related functioning.[38]Sleeping, concentrating, and sustaining regular attendance at work are normal day-to-day activities within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and the statutory Guidance. The claimant’s symptoms affected not merely specialised aspects of his senior role, but his capacity to function normally on a daily basis. Substantial adverse effect[39]The adverse effects of the impairment were substantial. They were more than minor or trivial.[40]By November 2023 the claimant’s symptoms had reached a point where he could no longer cope with work demands and required a prolonged period of absence, supported by GP fit notes. The evidence of broken sleep, exhaustion, and anxiety, taken together with his inability to attend work for a sustained period, demonstrates an impact that went well beyond ordinary fluctuations in mood or stress.[41]I accept the claimant’s evidence that the effects had built up over time and culminated in a significant deterioration in November 2023. Long-term effect and likelihood of recurrence[42]The remaining question is whether the substantial adverse effects were long term within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Equality Act 2010.[43]The claimant returned to work after January 2024 and appeared for a period to be coping. I therefore consider carefully whether, at the relevant time, it was likely that the adverse effects would recur. In doing so, I assess likelihood based on the evidence available and the circumstances prevailing at that time, and not with the benefit of hindsight.[44]The claimant’s impairment was closely connected to his working conditions and work-related stress. He had required a lengthy period of absence because of stress and anxiety, and the evidence indicated that similar stressors were likely to persist upon his return to work. In those circumstances, there was a real possibility that after resuming work the substantial adverse effects would recur.[45]While the claimant’s further absence in November 2024 cannot be used to determine retrospectively whether the effects would last for 12 months or more, it does confirm that the risk of recurrence identified at the relevant time was real rather than speculative. Whilst the respondent urged me to consider the lack of recurrence between December 2024 and March 2026 I am required to look at the evidence and circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and not with the benefit of hindsight.[46]I am therefore satisfied that the impairment was long term within the meaning of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1.
Conclusion
[47]For these reasons, I conclude that at the material time the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010. Approved by: