Christopher Rodger v Forestry and Land Scotland

An appeal against an employment tribunal’s conclusion on disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010 fails where the tribunal considered the relevant evidence, asked itself the correct questions, and reached conclusions open to it. Disagreement with the tribunal’s assessment of whether episodes of illness were connected does not, without more, disclose an error of law.

A tribunal need not identify every item of evidence on which a party relies. Its reasons are not inadequate merely because they do not expressly refer to a particular course of treatment or item of supporting evidence.

The claimant, an HR assistant whose employment ended in July 2022, brought disability-discrimination claims against Forestry and Land Scotland.

At an open preliminary hearing, the employment tribunal held that he lacked title and interest and that it lacked jurisdiction because he was not a disabled person. It dismissed the claim in a judgment sent to the parties on 19 December 2022.

He appealed, contending that the tribunal had wrongly treated illness episodes in January 2021 and March 2022 as unconnected, and had given inadequate reasons by failing to address his cognitive behavioural therapy. The central issue was whether those grounds identified an error of law in the tribunal’s assessment of disability.

1. Appeal dismissed. The appellant identified no error of law in the tribunal’s conclusion that he was not disabled for the purposes of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.

2. The tribunal had considered the certified absences in January 2021 and March 2022 and the other symptomatic episodes. It was not alleged that relevant evidence had been left out of account. The appellant’s complaint was instead that the tribunal should have drawn a different inference, namely that the episodes were linked despite the absence of a diagnosis of depression.

3. The tribunal had heard the evidence, considered it, and asked itself the correct questions. Its conclusion that the episodes were unconnected was open to it on that evidence. An appellate tribunal cannot intervene merely because a party disagrees with that evaluative conclusion.

4. The complaint about the tribunal’s reasons added nothing material. A fact-finding tribunal is not required to identify every item of evidence relied upon in reaching its factual conclusions. Applying DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg, the absence of a separate reference to the cognitive behavioural therapy did not establish inadequacy of reasons.

5. The tribunal’s dismissal of the discrimination claim therefore stood.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: Appeal dismissed in [2024] EAT 172; the tribunal’s dismissal was upheld.
• Employment Tribunal: Following a preliminary hearing, held that the claimant was not disabled, lacked title and interest, and that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the disability-discrimination complaints; claim dismissed.