Mefful v Merton And Lambeth Citizens Advice Bureau

When determining whether two impairments have a combined effect amounting to a disability, an Employment Tribunal must assess them holistically. It must add the component effects and decide whether their sum is greater than the impairments considered separately for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

An appellate challenge fails where the Tribunal has carried out that directed analysis, considered the medical evidence as a whole, and reached a permissible conclusion with adequate reasons. The fact that each condition may affect sleep does not itself require a finding that their combined effect creates an additional substantial adverse effect.

The Claimant brought complaints of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and breach of contract after his dismissal. The preliminary issue was whether he was disabled at the material time by reason of impaired hearing, a left-shoulder condition, or their combined effects.

An earlier Employment Tribunal found that neither condition, separately or cumulatively, amounted to a disability. On the Claimant's first appeal, HHJ Eady QC upheld the conclusion on hearing impairment but remitted the shoulder and combined-effect issues for reconsideration. The remitted Tribunal held that the shoulder condition did amount to a disability, but that the shoulder and hearing conditions did not cumulatively create a further disability.

The Claimant appealed, contending that the Tribunal had failed properly to consider evidence that shoulder pain and tinnitus combined to disturb his sleep. The central issue was whether the remitted Tribunal had applied the required combined-effect analysis and adequately engaged with the medical evidence.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the remitted Tribunal had performed the analysis it had been directed to undertake concerning the combined effect of the Claimant's impairments.

2. The applicable inquiry was whether the component effects of the shoulder impairment and hearing condition, considered together, amounted to more than the individual effects considered separately. That required a holistic assessment under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, applying the guidance in Ginn v Tesco Stores Ltd UKEAT/0197/05.

3. The Tribunal had considered the Claimant's evidence that shoulder pain woke him at night and tinnitus prevented him from returning to sleep. It had also considered the medical evidence as a whole, including the GP records and the report relating to hearing loss. Its Reasons showed that it found the impairments independent of one another and that they neither added to nor affected each other at the material time.

4. The absence of medical evidence relating to tinnitus after the GP note of 11 June 2012 was material to the Tribunal's permissible assessment of the evidence at the time of dismissal. The Tribunal was therefore entitled to conclude that the combined effects did not establish disability independently of the disability caused by the shoulder condition. No error of law was shown.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The present appeal from the remitted Employment Tribunal decision was dismissed.

• Employment Tribunal: In a decision sent on 29 July 2015, following remission, the Tribunal held that the Claimant was disabled because of his shoulder impairment but not by the cumulative effect of the shoulder and hearing conditions.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 5 December 2014, HHJ Eady QC upheld the original Tribunal's finding on hearing impairment, but remitted the shoulder and combined-effect issues for reconsideration.

• Employment Tribunal: The original Tribunal held that the Claimant was not disabled by reason of either impairment or their cumulative effect.