Steven Connor v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police

The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The EAT found no procedural irregularity in the tribunal's handling of evidence and re-examination: both the claimant and his wife gave evidence and contemporaneous notes supported the tribunal's account. On disability law, the EAT emphasised that establishing a recurring disability requires proof not only that an impairment recurred but that the substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities recurred, relying on sections 6 and 15 and Schedule 1 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal was entitled to accept the respondent's concession that depression arose from the date of suspension and to conclude that earlier periods showed work-related stress or anxiety rather than depression or, in any event, no substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The EAT held that the tribunal gave insufficient weight to a medical letter by treating the word "appears" as too weak, but that error was academic because the tribunal's findings on disability and justification stood.

Background and procedural history

The claimant, a long-serving civilian police employee, was suspended on 8 February 2019 and dismissed (letter dated 2 June 2020) after admitting accessing pornography on workplace equipment. The employment tribunal (ET) sent its written judgment on 23 May 2022. Permission to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) was limited by HHJ Shanks to grounds 4, 6, 12 and 13; the EAT hearing took place on 8 October 2024 and judgment was handed down on 12 November 2024.

Nature of the claim and issues before the EAT

• The appeal challenged an alleged procedural irregularity at the ET concerning denial of opportunity for evidence in chief and re-examination.
• The appeal also challenged the ET's legal and factual approach to disability under the Equality Act 2010, specifically (a) the date from which depression (if any) was a disability, and (b) the causative link under section 15 between any disability and the conduct leading to dismissal.

Facts and evidence

• The respondent conceded physical disabilities and conceded depression as an impairment from the date of suspension; the ET nevertheless examined medical records and occupational health reports to determine whether depression amounted to a disability earlier than that date.
• Medical records contained references to "recurrent depression" and a "new episode"; occupational health reports from 2013 and 2016 recorded stress and anxiety but did not diagnose depression or indicate substantial adverse effects on non-work day-to-day activities.
• A medical letter from Dr Barrett, prepared for disciplinary purposes, linked compulsive behaviours to stress; the ET treated that material cautiously because it had not been prepared as expert evidence for the tribunal.

Court's reasoning

• On the procedural point the EAT preferred the contemporaneous notes of the judge and tribunal member to the claimant's later recollection and found no denial of opportunity to give evidence in chief or to re-examine; any necessary clarification was given by the claimant when invited to do so.
• On disability, the EAT reiterated statutory tests in section 6, section 15 and Schedule 1 Equality Act 2010 and emphasised that "long-term" and "substantial" refer to the effect of an impairment, not merely its existence; recurrence must be shown in the substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.
• The ET's conclusion that depression did not exist or did not have a substantial adverse effect prior to February 2019 was open on the evidence, including gaps in GP attendances and the content of occupational health reports.
• The EAT criticised the ET's dismissive approach to Dr Barrett's letter (treating "appears" as insufficient) and said that in the informal tribunal setting medical reports not prepared for litigation still merit due regard; nevertheless, any error was academic because the ET's disability and justification findings were determinative.

Outcome

The appeal was dismissed because there was no procedural unfairness and the ET's findings on disability and justification were open on the evidence; the identified error as to treatment of a medical report did not affect the result.

The appeal is dismissed. The EAT held there was no procedural irregularity in respect of evidence in chief or re-examination, preferring contemporaneous tribunal notes to later recollections. On disability law the EAT confirmed that recurrence requires proof that the substantial adverse effects on day-to-day activities recurred; the ET was entitled to conclude that depression and a substantial adverse effect were not shown before the date of suspension and therefore no discrimination under section 15 arose. Although the ET applied an unduly literal approach to a medical letter, that error did not affect the outcome given the ET's findings on disability and justification.

The employment tribunal (judgment sent 23 May 2022) made findings on dismissal, disability and section 15 Equality Act 2010. Permission to appeal was given by HHJ Shanks at a preliminary hearing, limiting grounds to 4, 6, 12 and 13. The appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal was heard on 8 October 2024 and decided by HHJ Beard with judgment handed down 12 November 2024 ([2024] EAT 175).