Mrs L Hepworth v Dr Pettit and Others (a partnership T/a Malmesbury Medical Practice): 1400676/2022
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 May 2023 |
| Date | 04 May 2023 |
| Published date | 19 May 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Disability Discrimination |
| Citation | 1400676/2022 |
Case No: 1400676/22
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: Mrs L Hepworth
Respondents: Dr Pettit, Dr Estcourt, Dr Philips, Dr Haynes, Dr Hanslip, Dr
Gillam, Dr Neale (a partnership trading as Malmesbury Medical Practice)
Heard at: Bristol (via video) On: 2 May 2023
Before: Employment Judge Cuthbert
Representation
Claimant: Mr Hepworth (lay representative)
Respondent: Mr R Fitzpatrick (counsel)
PRELIMINARY HEARING
RESERVED JUDGMENT
1. The claimant was disabled in accordance with section 6 of the Equality Act
2010 with the physical impairments of fatigue, shortness of breath and
mobility difficulties, potentially attributable to Long COVID, from 9
September 2021 onwards.
2. The claimant was not disabled before 9 September 2021.
3. The Tribunal does therefore have jurisdiction to consider the complaints of
disability discrimination which include and post-date 9 September 2021,
which will proceed to the liability hearing from 19 to 23 June 2023 and be
determined along with the claimant’s other complaints.
REASONS
Introduction
1. The case was listed for a public, one-day video preliminary hearing to decide
the issue of disability. It was listed as such because it was convenient, this is
the normal practice in the region for such hearings and the parties were
content with it proceeding as such.
Case No: 1400676/22
2
2. In normal circumstances, one day would have been sufficient for the Tribunal
to have heard the evidence and submissions, deliberated and delivered an
oral decision to the parties. Unfortunately, there were a number of technical
issues involving the video hearing, which delayed the start of the hearing and
caused some delays during the course of it (whilst the hearing was paused
rather than during any evidence).
3. I was provided with an impact statement from the claimant and some related
medical evidence, 22 pages of redacted medical records. I was also provided
with a copy of the 407-page bundle which has been prepared the imminent
full hearing. Both parties prepared written opening notes. I heard oral
evidence from the claimant and then oral closing submissions from both
representatives. The oral submissions were not heard until the afternoon,
due to the earlier delays, and this left insufficient time for deliberation and an
oral decision.
4. Before the start of the claimant’s oral evidence, Mr Hepworth, who was
representing his wife, asked for her to be allowed to refer to some additional
notes, during her oral evidence, which they had prepared to assist her recall
of events. I refused this request - it would have been highly unusual and
there was no evidence to support such an adjustment being made. I
explained that Mr Hepworth could ask the claimant further questions by way
of re-examination, if he felt that any of her evidence needed to be clarified
after her questioning by Mr Fitzpatrick and the Tribunal.
Issues
5. The issues on disability to be determined had identified, amongst various
other issues relating other claims pursued by the claimant, at a previous case
management hearing. They are set out below. Some irrelevant issues have
been omitted, and some slightly refined but they are substantively the same
and the impairments relied upon as are as previously defined.
(a) Did the claimant have a disability as defined in section 6 of the
Equality Act 2010 between 9 July 2021 and 9 December 2021 (the
relevant period during which the alleged discrimination occurred,
as identified in the respondent’s opening note)? This entailed
deciding the following sub-issues:
i. Did the claimant have a physical impairment, identified and
agreed at the previous preliminary hearing specifically as
“fatigue, difficulty breathing and mobility difficulties,
attributed to Long COVID”?
ii. What were the effects of the impairments on her ability to
carry out normal day-to-day activities?
iii. Did the impairments have a substantial adverse effect on the
claimant's ability to carry out day-to-day activities?
iv. Were the substantial adverse effects of the impairment long-
term? The Tribunal will decide:
1. did they last at least 12 months, or
2. were they likely to last at least 12 months?
To continue reading
Request your trial