Rayner v. Turning Point & Ors

For mental impairment, disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 does not require proof of a clinically well-recognised condition. The question is whether there was a mental impairment with substantial and long-term adverse effects on normal day-to-day activities.

Medical evidence must address the statutory test and the relevant period. Evidence that anxiety or depression caused a person to stop work may support a substantial effect, although the ultimate assessment remains for the Employment Tribunal. Earlier episodes may be linked when assessing long-term effect. A treating GP’s evidence may be particularly valuable where a consultant’s assessment is inconclusive.

The Claimant appealed against an Employment Judge’s decision, following a pre-hearing review, that he was not disabled for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The issue concerned alleged mental impairment during the agreed period from May 2007 to 31 March 2008.

The Employment Judge relied substantially on a jointly instructed psychologist’s report and concluded that there was no qualifying impairment, substantial adverse effect or sufficient long-term effect. The appeal raised the effect of the amended statutory approach, the relevance of J v DLA Piper, the assessment of earlier episodes, and whether further GP evidence should be admitted.

1. Appeal allowed. The Employment Judge’s decision was set aside and the disability issue was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different Employment Judge.

2. The expert had applied a diagnostic standard higher than that required under the amended Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The statutory question was whether the Claimant had a mental impairment, without the need to establish a clinically well-recognised condition. The guidance in J v DLA Piper provided a clearer analytical approach to symptoms associated with anxiety, stress and depression.

3. The Employment Judge had not adequately focused on the agreed material period. Earlier episodes might together provide the necessary linkage for long-term effect. The medical records and the Claimant’s unchallenged evidence concerning concentration and sleep were capable of supporting a substantial adverse effect.

4. A GP diagnosis of anxiety and depression, accompanied by medical advice to refrain from work, was capable of evidencing a substantial effect on normal day-to-day activities, since attending work could form part of those activities. The assessment remained one for the Employment Tribunal.

5. A letter from the Claimant’s GP was admitted on appeal. It clarified medical material already reflected in the evidence and addressed adverse effects on the Claimant’s life and work. The letter was directed to be available at the rehearing and could, if requested, be referred to the expert.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the appeal against the Employment Judge’s decision and remitted the disability issue for a fresh hearing.
• Employment Tribunal: Employment Judge Palmer, in reasons registered on 17 May 2010, found that the Claimant was not disabled. Other aspects of the proceedings were directed to continue.