In JP v Spelthorne Borough Council [2025] EAT 127, the Employment Appeal Tribunal upheld a tribunal’s decision that an employee was not disabled during the relevant period, despite the tribunal not first setting out the precise allegations of discrimination.
The case focuses on section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, which defines disability for the purpose of discrimination claims. The ruling makes clear that tribunals may decide the question of disability without first identifying the specific claims in which that protected characteristic might be relied upon.
The claimant, who was dismissed, brought claims including disability discrimination. At a preliminary hearing, the tribunal held that she was not disabled between the earliest alleged act of discrimination and the termination of her employment. It found that the effects of her impairments had not lasted and were not likely to last 12 months, nor were they likely to recur, since they arose as a reaction to a particular work situation that was not expected to repeat.
On appeal, the claimant argued that the judge had erred by failing to identify the precise allegations of discrimination before addressing disability, relying on Cox v Adecco Group UK and Ireland and others [2021] ICR 1307. In that case, the EAT found that a tribunal had wrongly struck out a whistleblowing claim without properly defining the issues. The EAT (Judge Keith) dismissed the argument, drawing a distinction between the complex, multi-faceted assessment required in whistleblowing cases and the straightforward task of identifying the relevant period for assessing disability. It stressed that there is no hard-edged rule requiring tribunals to define claims before deciding whether a claimant has a protected characteristic.
The claimant also argued that the tribunal should have considered the period up to the conclusion of her appeal against dismissal, citing O’Brien v Bolton St Catherine’s Academy [2017] ICR 737. The EAT rejected this ground, distinguishing O’Brien on the basis that it concerned dismissal for disability-related absence, whereas here the dismissal was for a breakdown in the employment relationship. The tribunal was entitled to conclude, from the pleadings and the impact statement, that no claim of discrimination after termination had been made.
This case underlines that tribunals may resolve the question of disability without first defining the claims in dispute, provided the correct statutory period is considered. It also highlights the importance of pleadings in framing the tribunal’s analysis of discrimination allegations.JP v Spelthorne Borough Council: [2025] EAT 127.
