Miss S Atim v British Telecommunications plc: 6009680/2025
JUDGMENT
The Judgment of the Employment Tribunal is that: -(1) The claimant met the definition of disabled person under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 from 18 November 2024 and has continued to do so for the period covered by the claims in this case.(2) The claimant’s claim of unfair dismissal under is dismissed as the claimant has not been dismissed.(3) The claimant’s claim of breach of contract under Article 3 of the Employment Tribunal Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 is dismissed as the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear it because the claimant is still employed by the respondent.(4) The claimant made a free-standing claim for a breach of the GRDP. This Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear that claim, and it is dismissed.REASONS
[1]This hearing followed a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge King on 8 September 2025. EJ King set this hearing up to:1.1 Determine whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 at the relevant time; and1.2 Further case manage the case and list a final hearing, if appropriate, including the clarification of the claims and the list of issues being agreed as required.[2]Before the hearing, I read the Tribunal’s digital file. I also read the claimant’s document dated 6 October 2025 that set out her further information as ordered by EJ King and contained her impact statement, the claimant’s revised Schedule of Loss dated 5 March 2026.[3]I received the respondent’s bundle of documents for the hearing and an index at 9:45am. The bundle contained 94 pages. I had not completed my reading by the time that the hearing was due to start, so I opened the hearing, introduced myself, explained what I hoped to do in the hearing and indicated that I had not finished my reading.[4]I confirmed with the claimant that her clams of unfair dismissal and breach of contract had to be dismissed because she was still employed by the respondent and a party can only bring a claim of breach of contract after their employment has ended. I also indicated that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with a standalone claim of breach of the GDPR and that I would dismiss that claim also. I have dismissed the three claims in the Judgment and Reasons in the PPH on disability.[5]EJ King and the Tribunal had mistakenly listed this hearing as a preliminary hearing for case management, not a public preliminary hearing. The importance of the mistake is that I could not deal with the disability matter in a preliminary hearing. It had to be a public preliminary hearing.[6]With the consent of the parties to abridge the 14-day notice period required to list a public preliminary hearing, I converted the hearing to a PPH.[7]I paused the hearing at 10:15am to complete my reading and retuned at 10:45am, when I heard the disability issue.[8]I finished the evidence and submissions at 11:35am and asked the parties to return at 2:00pm. At 2;00pm, I gave my Judgement and Reasons, which was that the claimant met the definition of disability from 18 November 2024.[9]I then converted the hearing back to a preliminary hearing and conducted case management.[10]As the claimant was unrepresented. I reminded her that the Tribunal operates on a set of Rules (I have set out the link to those Rules below). Rule 3 sets out the overriding objective of the Tribunal Rules (their main purpose), which is to deal with cases justly and fairly. It is reproduced here: Overriding objective 3.—(1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly.(2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes, so far as practicable— (a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing, (b) dealing with cases in ways which are proportionate to the complexity and importance of the issues, (c) avoiding unnecessary formality and seeking flexibility in the proceedings, (d) avoiding delay, so far as compatible with proper consideration of the issues, and (e) saving expense.(3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it— (a) exercises any power under these Rules, or (b) interprets any rule or practice direction.(4) The parties and their representatives must— (a) assist the Tribunal to further the overriding objective, and (b) co-operate generally with each other and with the Tribunal. Findings DisabilityFindings
[11]I start from the position that it was agreed that the claimant, at all times from 3 April 2024 was diagnosed with Mixed Anxiety and Depressive Disorder.[12]I would make the general finding about the claimant’s impact statement that her narrative on the effect of her disability on her ability to carry out normal day to day activities (para 9.2 [71]) looked more like a list of symptoms from a medical website describing the potential effects. She gave no actual examples, relying on generalisations.[13]I find that the claimant did not assist her claim by the way in which it was presented and the evidence put before the Tribunal. EJ King’s CMO at the PH on 8 September 2025 [59] ordered the claimant to send to the respondent: “…copies of the parts of their GP and other medical records that are relevant to whether they had the disability at the time of the events the claim is about. They may blank out anything that is clearly not relevant; …any other evidence relevant to whether they had the disability at that time.”[14]The claimant produced copies of her MED3 certificates and a letter from her GP practice dated 16 October 2025 [89-91]. When the claimant was asked about apparent discrepancies between her impact statement and the contents of the GPs letter, she said that the letter must be wrong.[15]I do not find that explanation to be credible, as the claimant has had the letter since 16 October 2025 and therefore has had ample opportunity to read it and take up any discrepancies with the author of the letter.[16]I find that the medical evidence shows that the claimant was not medicated for her condition until 18 November 2024. I make that finding because it is the most likely interpretation of the GPs letter and is corroborated by the entry for 20 June 2024, which states that “She has been using regular medication since 18 November 2024.”[17]I find that a letter that has been written after consulting the claimant’s medical records, which were not produced, is more likely to be reliable than the claimant’s recollection.[18]I find that the claimant did not meet the definition of disability when she saw her GP on 3 April 2024. I make that finding because:18.1 The claimant was signed off work for two weeks, which does not support the suggestion that the condition was likely to last 12 months or more; and18.2 The claimant was not prescribed medication.[19]I find that the claimant did not meet the definition when she made an electronic request for an extension of her MED3 certificate on 18 April 2024 as there was no evidence to suggest that the claimant’s condition was likely to last for 12 months or more. Her condition was affected by stress in the workplace, but no medication was requested or prescribed.[20]I find that the claimant did not meet the definition when she made an electronic request for an extension of her MED3 certificate on 20 May 2024, as there was no evidence to suggest that the claimant’s condition was likely to last for 12 months or more.[21]I find that the GP noted an improvement in the claimant’s sleep and no deterioration in her anxiety in a phone call with her GP on 24 May 2024. I find that there it was not likely that the claimant’s condition would last 12 months from this date.[22]I find that the claimant made an electronic request for a further extension of her MED3 on 22 July 2024. I find that the claimant sought extensions of her MED 3 electronically is indicative that she did not perceive that her condition required a face to face or telephone consultation with her GP. The claimant’s reasons for seeking the extension were a recent gynaecological procedure and that she did not feel ready to return to work, where previously it had been noted that she was under pressure over her performance. I find that it was not likely that the claimant’s condition would last a further 12 months at this point.[23]I find that on 29 July 2024, when the claimant met Dr Nicol, the GP does not indicate that the claimant was on any medication. The note indicates that the claimant was managing her depression and anxiety symptoms with therapy and lifestyle measures (not medication). In her oral evidence, the clamant said that she was receiving support from her family. I find that it was not likely at this point that the claimant’s condition would last 12 months or more.[24]The claimant returned to work on 2 September 2024 and remined in work until she became ill again on 10 October 2024. There is no note of any interaction between the claimant and the GP practice between 29 July 2024 and 10 October 2024. I do not find the claimant’s assertion that she only returned to work because she needed the money to assist her case.[25]The claimant contacted her GP on 10 October 2024 with anxiety and stress and was signed off work. I find that it was not likely that the claimant’s condition would last a further 12 months on 10 October because she had completed more than 5 weeks back at work and was still not taking medication prescribed by the GP.[26]I find that the same situation regarding disability applies on 5 November 2024, when the claimant applied for an electronic extension of her MED3 certificate.[27]The claimant saw her GP in a face-to-face consultation on 18 November. I find that from this date, the claimant met the definition because medication was prescribed, a referral was made to local psychological services, and the claimant was supplied with the details of the local CRISIS team. I find this to be a serious escalation in the claimant’s illness and find that, given her history and the fact that she had not made any marked improvement since April 2024, it can be considered likely that the claimant’s condition would last 12 months or more and that it would have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-today activities.[28]The respondent conceded that the claimant met the definition from 31 January 2025. Approved by: