Mr A Stirrat v The Electrical Network Ltd: 8001663/2025
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND)
Case No 8001663/2025Venue GlasgowHearing 25 November 2025
Between
Mr A StirratClaimantThe Electrical Network LtdRespondent
Before
Employment Judge C McManusMs T Chrystal for respondentHR Officer for respondentDate 27 November 2025
JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that in the relevant period (24 February to 16 May 2025) the claimant did have the protected characteristic of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
REASONS
Reasons were given orally at the Hearing on 25 November 2025. JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL The judgment of the Tribunal is that in the period between 24 Feb and 16 May 2025 the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, in respect of the effects of fibromyalgia. REASONS
Introduction
[1]The claim is for unlawful discrimination on the basis of the claimant having the protected characteristic of disability. At this Preliminary Hearing (‘PH’) I required to determine whether, in the relevant period, the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability in terms of section 6 the Equality Act 2010, in respect of the effects(1) Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (‘JIA’)(2) Fibromyalgia.[2]This PH followed a PH for the purpose of case management (‘CMPH’) before Employment Judge J d’Inverno on 19 September 2025. The Note issued following that CMPH confirms what is relied upon by the claimant in respect of him having the protected characteristic of disability. The claimant relies on the effects of(1) JIA(2) Fibromyalgia. It was confirmed at that CMPH that the material period in which disability discrimination is alleged to have taken place is between 24 February and 9 May 2025. This is the material period in respect of which I had to determine whether the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability.[3]The Orders for preparation of a Joint Bundle for this PH had not been complied with. Parties exchanged paper documents on the morning of the PH and there was a delay until 11am for these to be considered. Evidence in those Bundles is referred to by their page numbering, in the claimant’s Bundle C1 – C57, and in the respondent’s bundle R1 – R40. Most of the documents in the bundles were not referred to during the hearing. Most of the documents were not relevant of the issues determined at this PH. There was duplication in the Bundles, particularly of medical evidence. The claimant had provided an impact statement, which was also included in the Bundles.[4]The claimant confirmed that the chair in the Tribunal room was appropriate for him. He was permitted to stand during the hearing as required.[5]The decision and reasons were issued orally on 25 November 2025. This Judgment provides written reasons, confirming the decision.
Issues
[6]I required to determine whether, at the material time, the claimant had the protected characteristic of disability, in terms of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. The material period is 24 February to 16 May 2025. I required to determine the following issues in respect of that material period, with regard to the relevant statutory guidance and relevant case law authorities:-• Did the claimant have or was he likely to have had the physical impairment of(1) JIA(2) Fibromyalgia?• If so, did such impairment have an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities?• If so, was that effect substantial?• If so, was the effect long term?
Relevant law
[7]The Equality Act 2010 (‘EqA’) provides for certain ‘protected characteristics’. Disability is a protected characteristic under s4 of the EqA. The definition of ‘disability’ is set out in s6, as follows: “(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.”[8]Section 212 defines the word “substantial” as meaning “more than minor or trivial”.[9]Part 1 of Schedule 1 EqA expands on the definition of disability, including the following paragraphs: “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.” And … “5. (1) 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— (a) measures are being taken to treat or correct it, and (b) but for that, it would be likely to have that effect.(2) “Measures” includes, in particular, medical treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid.”[10]While the focus is on the statutory definition, the Disability: Equality Act 2010 - Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability (the statutory Guidance’) must be taken into account. I considered this Guidance in its entirety. The following paragraphs were particularly relevant: - particularly on ‘normal day to day activities’ at D2 – D6 and D22, and the following paragraphs re: Impairment “A6. It may not always be possible, nor is it necessary, to categorise a condition as either a physical or a mental impairment. The underlying cause of the impairment may be hard to establish. There may be adverse effects which are both physical and mental in nature. Furthermore, effects of a mainly physical nature may stem from an underlying mental impairment, and vice versa.” “A7. It is not necessary to consider how an impairment is caused, even if the cause is a consequence of a condition which is excluded. For example, liver disease as a result of alcohol dependency would count as an impairment, although an addiction to alcohol itself is expressly excluded from the scope of the definition of disability in the Act. What it is important to consider is the effect of an impairment, not its cause – provided that it is not an excluded condition.” Long Term Effects “C3. The meaning of ‘likely’ is relevant when determining:• whether an impairment has a long-term effect (Sch1, Para 2(1), see also paragraph C1)…..• how an impairment should be treated for the purposes of the Act when the effects of that impairment are controlled or corrected by treatment or behaviour (Sch1, Para 5(1), see also paragraphs B7 to B17)”. In these contexts, ‘likely’, should be interpreted as meaning that it could well happen.” “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).”[11]The guidance in section D, covering ‘normal day to day activities’ was relevant, particularly D2 – D6 and D22.[12]The Equality Act 2010 Statutory Code of Practice 2011 (‘EHRC’) Appendix 1 is relevant, in particular:- Paragraph 7 - ‘What if individual has no medical diagnosis?’ “7. There is no need for a person to establish a medically diagnosed cause for their impairment. What it is important to consider is the effect of the impairment, not the cause.” Paragraphs 8 – 10 – ‘What is a ‘substantial’ adverse effect? “8. A substantial adverse effect is something which is more than a minor or trivial effect. The requirement that an effect must be substantial reflects the general understanding of disability as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which might exist among people. 9. Account should also be taken of where a person avoids doing things which, for example, cause pain, fatigue or substantial social embarrassment; or because of a loss of energy and motivation. 10. An impairment may not directly prevent someone from carrying out one or more normal day-to-day activities, but it may still have a substantial adverse long-term effect on how they carry out those activities. For example, where an impairment causes pain or fatigue in performing normal day-to-day activities, the person may have the capacity to do something but suffer pain in doing so; or the impairment might make the activity more than usually fatiguing so that the person might not be able to repeat the task over a sustained period of time.” Paragraphs 11 - ‘What is a ‘long term’ effect? ‘11. A long-term effect of an impairment is one:• which has lasted at least 12 months; or• where the total period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months; or• which is likely to last for the rest of the life of the person affected.’ Paragraphs 14 - 15 – ‘What are ‘normal day to day activities’? “14. They are activities which are carried out by most men or women on a fairly regular and frequent basis. The term is not intended to include activities which are normal only for a particular person or group of people, such as playing a musical instrument, or participating in a sport to a professional standard, or performing a skilled or specialised task at work. However, someone who is affected in such a specialised way but is also affected in normal day-to-day activities would be covered by this part of the definition.[15]Day-to-day activities thus include – but are not limited to –activities such as walking, driving, using public transport, cooking, eating, lifting and carrying everyday objects, typing, writing (and taking exams), going to the toilet, talking, listening to conversations or music, reading, taking part in normal social interaction or forming social relationships, nourishing and caring for one’s self. Normal day-to-day activities also encompass the activities which are relevant to working life.” Authorities 13. In Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302, the EAT (at paragraph 308) said: “Section 1(1) defines the circumstances in which a person has a disability within the meaning of the Act. The words of the section require a tribunal to look at the evidence by reference to four different conditions:(1) The impairment condition. Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?(2) The adverse effect condition. Does the impairment affect the applicant's ability to carry out normal day-to-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. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant's ability) substantial?(4) The long-term condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant's ability) long-term?” 14. The Court of Appeal in Sullivan v Bury Street Capital [2022] IRLR 159, CA summarised the relevant questions that a Tribunal must ask when determining disability (at para 38) as: (1) Was there an impairment? (2) What were its adverse effects? (3) Were they more than minor or trivial? (4) Was there a real possibility that they would continue for more than 12 months or that they would recur? 15. ‘Likely’ means ‘could well happen’ (Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] UKHL 37, [2009] IRLR 746, [2009] ICR 1056, per Lord Hope at para 4, and Lord Rodger at para 42, Baroness Hale at paras 70–72 (with whom Lord Neuberger agreed at para 81), Lord Brown at para 77).[16]The assessment of how long the adverse effect(s) of an impairment have lasted, or how long they are likely to last, is to be made at the time of the alleged discrimination (All Answers Ltd v W and another [2021] IRLR 612, CA, para [26] per Lewis LJ).[17]In Royal Borough of Greenwich v Syed EAT 0244/14 Mr Justice Wilkie observed: ‘[T]he question which the tribunal has to ask itself is not whether the mental health impairment was likely to last at least 12 months but whether the substantial adverse effect of the impairment was likely to last more than 12 months. That is a different question.’[18]The test is a functional and not a medical test. In Aderemi v London and South Eastern Railway Ltd 2013 ICR 591, the EAT commented on the definition of ‘substantial’ (paragraph 14): “Once he has established that there is an effect, that it is adverse, that it is an effect upon his ability, that is to carry out normal day-today activities, a Tribunal has then to assess whether that is or is not substantial. Here, however, it has to bear in mind the definition of substantial which is contained in section 212(1) of the Act. It means more than minor or trivial. In other words, the Act itself does not create a spectrum running smoothly from those matters which are clearly of substantial effect to those matters which are clearly trivial but provides for a bifurcation: unless a matter can be classified as within the heading “trivial” or “insubstantial”, it must be treated as substantial. There is therefore little room for any form of sliding scale between one and the other.”[19]And at paragraph 15: “As a matter of first principle when considering the statute, this requires the focus of the Tribunal to be not upon that which a Claimant can do but that upon which he cannot do. It is what he cannot do that requires to be assessed, to see whether it is truly trivial and insubstantial or whether it is not.”[20]In determining whether an adverse effect is substantial, a Tribunal must compare the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities with the ability the claimant would have if not impaired. That is the approach taken by the EAT in Aderemi, as described at paragraphs 16 - 17: “16. We take that to be the approach which a reading of the statute would require. It is the approach as we see it which was adopted, albeit under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, in Paterson [Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 2007 ICR 1522, EAT]. There, the headnote rightly reads: “The only proper approach to establishing whether the disadvantage was substantial is to compare the effect of the disability on the individual. This involves considering how he in fact carries out the activity compared with how he would do it 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 substantial. 17. By “compare the effect” we think it means “assess the effect”.’[21]In Nissa v Waverly Education Foundation Ltd [2018] 11 WLUK 718, then HHJ Eady QC held, in allowing the claimant’s appeal from the ET, that the ET had erred when: “In determining whether the effect of the Claimant’s impairments was “long-term”, the ET had focused on the question of diagnosis rather than the effects of the impairments and had adopted a narrow approach, rather than looking at the reality of risk - whether it could well happen - on a broad view of the evidence available.”[22]The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal in Veitch v Red Sky Group Ltd [2010] NICA 69 set out guidance on whether medical evidence is necessary (paragraph 19): “The presence or absence of medical evidence may be a matter of relevance to be taken into consideration in deciding what weight to put on evidence of claimed difficulties causing alleged disability but its absence does not of itself preclude a finding of fact that a person suffers from an impairment that has substantial long-term adverse effect..”[23]In Igweike v TSB Bank plc [2020] IRLR 267, the EAT (HHJ Auerbach) set out a useful review of the case law. At paragraph 35, it was noted that: “Walker v SITA Information Networking Computing Ltd [2013] UKEAT/0097/12 is one of a number of authorities which make the point that there is no requirement to identify the cause of the impairment although, if there is a lack of an apparent cause, that could potentially be regarded as evidentially significant, for example to an issue of whether a complainant's reported symptoms were genuine.”[24]HHJ Auerbach concluded at paragraphs 50 – 51 of Igweike: “50. The question is a purely practical or evidential one, which is sensitive to the nature of the alleged disability, the facts, and the nature of the evidence, in the given case.”[25]The issue as to how long an impairment is likely to last should be determined as the date of the discriminatory act and not the date of the Tribunal hearing. The position in McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431, CA was followed by the Court of Appeal in All Answers Ltd v Mr W [2021] IRLR EWCA Civ 606, particularly at para 26:- “26. The question, therefore, is whether, as at the time of the alleged discriminatory acts, the effect of an impairment is likely to last at least 12 months. That is to be assessed by reference to the facts and circumstances existing at the date of the alleged discriminatory acts. A tribunal is making an assessment, or prediction, as at the date of the alleged discrimination, as to whether the effect of an impairment was likely to last at least 12 months from that date. 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.” Burden of Proof[26]As noted by Lord Hoffman in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35: “If the tribunal is left in doubt, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof.”[27]The burden of proving disability lies with the claimant. The relevant test is ‘on the balance of probabilities’.[28]It is well established that ‘contemporary documents are always of the utmost importance’ (Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403, at para 431). Comments on Evidence[29]There was sufficient material before me to make findings in fact on the issues for this PH. I placed significant weight on the medical records, including correspondence from Consultant Rheumatologists. Those medical records were consistent with the claimant’s evidence on the effects of joint pain on his day to activities. The claimant was straightforward in his answering of questions and his position was supported by the medical evidence. He made concessions such as that until November 2024 the level of pain was significant but was not interfering with his normal activities. He accepted that as at October 2024 there was no evidence of JIA being active (C48). He accepted that until February 2024 joint pain did not affect his ability to carry out his job with the respondent. He did not dispute that he had no absences from work because of pain before February 2024. It was significant that from October 2024 he took public transport to work rather than walking.[30]The medical evidence supports the claimant’s evidence that he has suffered from the effects of joint pain since at least September 2024. I considered the effects on the claimant’s day to day activities in the material period. I accepted the claimant’s evidence on the extent of the effects of his joint pain. It was later diagnosed that the claimant has fibromyalgia. On the balance of probabilities, the evidence shows that the joint pain experienced by the claimant in the material period was caused by fibromyalgia. The claimant’s position was supported by the medical records and was not substantially challenged by the respondent’s representative. The respondent did not contest that fibromyalgia is a chronic lifelong condition. Although there was reference in the medical records to other conditions and symptoms, it had been identified at the CMPH that the claimant relied only on the effects of(1) JIA(2) fibromyalgia. The fact that the fit notes referred to ‘stress’ does not disprove, on all the relevant evidence relied upon, that at the material time the claimant was suffering from the effects of joint pain. The claimant had thought that his joint pain was caused by JIA because he had suffered from that in the past. Following medical investigations, the joint pain was identified as an effect of fibromyalgia. The claimant’s evidence was that he was ‘surprised that it was not a rheumatic flare up but agreed with the diagnosis if that was the professional opinion. At the time I assumed it was a flare up of JIA. The pain is from fibromyalgia not JIA” Findings in Fact[31]The following facts are material to the determination of the issues and are agreed or found on the evidence before me at this PH.[32]The claimant has a history of Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis (‘JIA’). He was diagnosed with JIA aged 12, in 2006. His last flare up on JIA was in 2018. The claimant suffered from increasing joint pain from March 2024. The claimant suspected that that was a flare up of JIA. He experienced an increasing level of pain and discomfort. Upon returning home from work in the evening, he would be unusually exhausted and sore. He was fatigued and would at times require periods of rest before being able to cook or perform household chores. The claimant attended his GP about these worsening symptoms (C3 / R11). He was referred by his GP to a Rheumatology Consultant. He was examined by that Rheumatology Consultant in September 2024, and a report was produced (C50). From that time the claimant underwent medical investigations to identify the cause of his joint pain and associated symptoms.[33]In October 2024 the claimant was walking to work as usual but had to stop to rest because of joint pain. He was not able to continue to walk to work. He phoned the respondent’s Branch Manager to inform them that he would be late. From that day in October 2024 until he was last at work in February 2025, the claimant took a bus to work because the effects of his joint pain caused him to be no longer able to walk there from his home.[34]From winter 2024 the joint pain and stiffness experienced by the claimant had progressed to the extent that it had a significant effect on his normal day to day activities. That extent has continued since winter 2024. He has increased and significant pain in his joints, particularly his knees, elbows and lower back. He experiences stiffness, especially in the morning (for around 2 hours), and generally slow movements. He has an over-bath shower and installed a support to help him to climb into this. He is more fatigued than normal. His range of movements became limited, especially in his arms and when his joints are swollen.[35]In around November 2024, the claimant stopped playing drums because of his joint pain. Prior to then the claimant had spent ‘most of [his] time when not working’ playing the drums. Prior to November 2024, playing drums was a normal day to day activity for the claimant. To continue playing music, from November 2024 the claimant changed from drums to playing bass guitar and has been able to do that because the joints in his hands are not as affected as the joints in his elbows and knees.[36]Since November 2024 the effects of joint pain has affected the claimant’s ability to carry out shopping. He has changed his behaviour so that he now shops more frequently, in local shops, close to his home, so that he can carry his purchases in a small backpack. He relies on family and friends to shop for and deliver heavier and bulkier items such as cat litter and toilet rolls, or arranges for them to be delivered by a supermarket. He has difficulty and discomfort in both standing and sitting for extended periods. He used to frequently attend music concerts but can no longer do so because of his joint pain. Concerts he does go to he gets seated tickets for, so that he can vary between sitting and standing. His joint pain limits his attendance at social events. He became prone to cancelling attending social events. He used to walk rather than take public transport. From winter 2024 he became reliant on public transport rather than walking. He used to frequently walk distances of over a mile but from summer 2025 became limited to only walking approx. 400m and has limited his activities to within 400m of his home.[37]The claimant had no absence from work because of joint pain until February 2025. In February 2025 his joint pain had increased. His left elbow was swollen, painful to touch and was limited in range of movement. The claimant was certified as unfit for work because of “stress” from 25 February until 12 March 2025. He was certified as unfit for work from 12 March until 2 April 2025 because of “stress and joint pain”. The claimant was subsequently certified as unfit for work because of “stress and joint pain under investigation”.[38]In February 2025 the claimant attended his GP because of his worsening symptoms. The claimant was referred by his GP to another Consultant Rheumatologist for a second opinion (C44). In April 2025 the claimant saw an NHS Consultant Rheumatologist for a second opinion. That Consultant’s report is dated 10 April 2025 (C41 –C43). Further medical investigations were recommended. That report includes that at that time the claimant reported:- “His symptoms are most marked in the morning and the evening. He describes both resting and walking as potential exacerbating features he describes over 2 hours of morning stiffness he has symptoms on a daily basis which do not seem to vary he has also had intermittent swelling in his knees and around his left elbow.”[39]That Consultant Rheumatologist noted some restrictions in range of movement (C42). They reported that there were no current symptoms of arthritis. That Consultant Rheumatologist reported that they had ‘not found any evidence of active inflammation’ on the day of examination. Their reports states (C42) “He was positive over a number of fibromyalgic trigger points, particularly over his upper and lower back.” and (C42) “I broached the subject of a chronic pain disorder and we have spoken a little bit about fibromyalgia today. He certainly has some features which would be in keeping with this.”[40]The outcome of the medical investigations was that the claimant was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in August 2025 (C22 – C23/ R39- R40). The joint pain and swelling experienced by the claimant in the material period were effects of fibromyalgia. Fibromyalgia is a chronic lifelong condition. The claimant has been prescribed pain killers for that joint pain as detailed in his GP records and referred to in letters from his Consultant Rheumatologist.[41]Since November or December 2024 the claimant has been in receipt of Adult Disability Payment. His eligibility for that benefit was based on his ability to carry out day to day activities. As part of the assessment process, the claimant was interviewed and information was obtained from his GP.[42]Following the statutory guidance at A7, I considered the effect of an impairment, rather than its cause. On the evidence before me, in the period from 24 February to 16 May 2025 the claimant suffered from a physical impairment of pain and stiffness in his joints, particularly his knees, elbows and lower back. On the basis of the Consultant Rheumatologist’s clinical findings in April 2025 (C41 –C43), in the material period, those effects were not from JIA. On that evidence, in the material period the claimant did not have and was not likely to have had JIA.[43]Although not diagnosed at that time, given that the claimant was then undergoing medical investigations and was subsequently diagnosed with fibromyalgia, it is likely that in the material period those were effects of fibromyalgia. On the evidence, during the period 24 February to 16 May 2025, the claimant suffered from the effects of the physical impairment of joint pain. In that period, the joint pain experienced by the claimant was likely to have been caused by fibromyalgia. Adverse Effect[44]I considered whether in the material period that impairment had an adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out normal day to day activities. I had regard to the meaning of ‘normal day to day activities’ in the Statutory Guidance, particularly at D2 – D6 and D22. On the evidence before me, and my subsequent findings in fact, in the material period joint pain (from fibromyalgia) had an adverse effect on the claimant’s ability to carry out his normal day to day activities. The claimant’s normal day to day activities included playing drums, shopping, walking rather than taking public transport, household chores such as cleaning, cooking, attending concerts and socialising with friends. The claimant proved, on the balance of probabilities, that in the material period his normal day to day activities were affected by joint pain, stiffness and associated fatigue, which were effects of fibromyalgia. Substantial effect[45]I considered whether the effect was substantial, with regard to Section B of the Guidance, which covers the meaning of ‘substantial adverse effect’. I followed the approach in Aderemi, where the EAT said: “The tribunal then had to bear in mind the definition of substantial under s.212(1) which was more than minor or trivial. Unless a matter could be classified within the heading "trivial" or "insubstantial" it had to be treated as substantial.”[46]On the evidence before me and my subsequent findings in fact, the joint pain experienced by the claimant, with linked stiffness and fatigue had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out his normal day-to-day activities. In the material period the claimant’s day to day activities were limited because of his joint pain, stiffness and linked fatigue, to an extent which was more than minor or trivial. That was a substantial effect. Long Term[47]As at the material period (24 February to 16 May 2025) the claimant had not experienced the substantial effects for at least 12 months, as required by Part 1 of Schedule 1 EqA 2010 paragraph 2(1)(a). From winter 2024 the joint pain and stiffness experienced by the claimant had progressed to the extent that it had a significant effect on his normal day to day activities. That extent has continued since winter 2024. I took into account that the claimant was unable to provide precisely accurate dates of worsening of his symptoms and increasing effects from then. The medical records were significant.[48]On application of McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College [2008] ICR 431, CA, I determined the issue as to how long an impairment is likely to last as at the date of the discriminatory act, i.e. in the material period. In the material period the claimant had not experienced the substantial effects for at least 12 months. On the balance of probabilities, the claimant proved that in the material period the substantial effects were likely to become long term. Part 1 of Schedule 1 EqA 2010 paragraph 2(1)(b) and (c) apply.[49]The effects of joint pain were from fibromyalgia, which is a lifelong condition. If the effects are alleviated by medication or other treatment, Part 1 of Schedule 1 EqA paragraph 5 would apply.
Conclusion
[50]On application of the relevant legislation, statutory guidance and case law authorities to the facts found on the evidence before me, in the material period the claimant had a physical impairment which had an adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day to day activities and which was substantial and likely to last at least 12 months.[51]The claimant had the protected characteristic of disability in the period from 24 Feb to 16 May 2025.