Harry Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd

For disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, a substantial adverse effect on one normal day-to-day activity is sufficient. A tribunal must focus on what the person cannot do, or can do only with difficulty. It must not balance those limitations against abilities retained, either within an activity or across activities.

The required comparison is between the claimant’s actual abilities and their hypothetical abilities without the impairment. A clinical diagnosis of autism or ADHD is relevant not only to the existence of an impairment but also, subject to its reliability and the evidence, to the extent of its functional impact. The latter observation was obiter.

The claimant, who had diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, alleged disability discrimination after his unsuccessful application for work as an Animation Host.

An Employment Tribunal determined at a preliminary hearing that he was not disabled under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010. He appealed. The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s treatment of evidence concerning social interaction, concentration, and use of overcrowded public transport, and its reliance on activities the claimant could perform.

The central issue was whether the Tribunal had lawfully assessed whether the impairments had a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities.

1. Appeal allowed. The Tribunal’s finding that the claimant was not disabled was set aside and the issue was remitted to a fresh Employment Tribunal.

2. Section 6 requires a comparison between the claimant with the impairment and the same claimant as they would hypothetically be without it. The Tribunal instead compared the claimant’s difficulties with what might be expected of non-disabled people generally. That was the wrong comparison.

3. A claimant need show a substantial adverse effect on only one normal day-to-day activity. A tribunal must not offset limitations in one activity against abilities in another, or weigh what the claimant can do against what they cannot do or can do only with difficulty. Evidence of retained ability may assist in resolving a genuine factual dispute about an asserted limitation, but it cannot be used as a balancing exercise.

4. The Tribunal accepted difficulties in forming friendships and avoiding overcrowded public transport, but treated them as insubstantial without adequate analysis. It also failed to address material evidence that the claimant excluded himself from social activities and struggled to interact and communicate with colleagues and customers. Its findings concerning academic achievement and public performance improperly balanced retained abilities against asserted limitations.

5. It was not inevitable that a properly directed tribunal would find the claimant disabled. The claimant’s evidence was limited and the Tribunal had made some findings that he overstated particular difficulties. Nevertheless, its conclusion was perverse on the facts found and reasons given.

6. Obiter: a reliable clinical diagnosis of autism or ADHD is relevant both to impairment and to functional impact. It does not answer the statutory question, but a tribunal must engage with the clinician’s assessment of significant difficulties in the relevant areas of functioning.

7. Applying Sinclair Roche & Temperley v Heard, the decision was sufficiently flawed to require a wholly fresh determination by a different Tribunal.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: allowed the claimant’s appeal and remitted the disability issue for fresh determination.
• Employment Tribunal: by a judgment sent on 21 December 2023, held that the claimant was not disabled within section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.