Sullivan v Bury Street Capital Limited

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant commenced employment with Company B as a Senior Sales Executive in September 2009. During his employment, he developed paranoid delusions related to being monitored and followed, which were found to be symptoms of a potential persistent delusional disorder. The Employment Tribunal ("ET") found that between May and September 2013, and again in 2017, the Appellant experienced a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities such as sleeping and social interaction, linked to his condition. However, the ET concluded that these effects did not meet the statutory definition of disability under the Equality Act 2010 due to their limited duration and likelihood of recurrence.

The Appellant’s employment was terminated in September 2017 on grounds related to capability and attitude, following a GP's advice for the Appellant to stay out of work. The Appellant subsequently brought claims including unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The ET found procedural unfairness in the dismissal but dismissed the disability-related claims.

The Appellant appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal ("EAT"), which dismissed the appeal but granted permission to appeal to this Court on grounds relating to the ET’s findings on disability and knowledge of disability by the Respondent. The appeal to this Court concerns whether the ET erred in law in its conclusions.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Appellant had a disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, specifically if his mental impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.
2. Whether the Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the Appellant’s disability.
3. Whether the ET erred in its assessment of the likelihood of recurrence of the substantial adverse effects of the impairment.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The ET failed to properly assess whether there was a substantial adverse effect ("SAE") throughout the period from 2013 to 2017.
• The ET erred in finding that the Appellant did not have a recurring condition likely to meet the long-term requirement of disability.
• The ET incorrectly found that the Respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the Appellant’s disability, failing to properly consider what the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known.
• Relied on case law and CJEU decisions to argue for a broader interpretation of disability and recurrence under the Equality Act 2010.
• Criticised the ET for not expressly considering certain guidance and medical reports.

Respondent's Arguments

• The ET correctly applied the legal test and made findings based on the evidence, including expert testimony.
• The substantial adverse effects identified were not long-term or likely to recur beyond the statutory threshold.
• The Respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of a disability as defined by the Act.
• The Appellant’s appeal amounted to a disagreement with findings of fact rather than a valid point of law.
• Not all guidance or medical reports cited by the Appellant were directly relevant or raised before the ET, and the ET was not required to mention every piece of evidence explicitly.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court focused on whether the Employment Tribunal’s findings were legally flawed or perverse. It noted that the ET had correctly applied the legal test for disability under the Equality Act 2010, including the interpretation of “likely” as “could well occur,” consistent with House of Lords authority. The ET had addressed the relevant questions concerning impairment, adverse effects, substantiality, long-term nature, and employer knowledge.

The Court emphasized the well-established principle that appellate review of factual findings is limited to errors of law or perversity, neither of which was demonstrated. The ET had considered all relevant evidence, including expert psychiatric opinion and observations from the Appellant’s employer and colleagues. It was entitled to form its own view on the impact and duration of the Appellant’s condition and its recurrence.

The Court rejected the Appellant’s reliance on various authorities and guidance as not materially undermining the ET’s factual conclusions. It noted that failure to explicitly reference every piece of guidance or medical report did not amount to legal error, particularly where the parties had not drawn attention to those materials before the ET. The Court also found no error in the ET’s assessment of the Respondent’s knowledge, which was based on evidence from relevant managerial personnel.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the appeal was an attempt to re-litigate factual findings rather than raise a valid point of law, and that the ET’s reasons were adequate and lawful.

Holding and Implications

The Court DISMISSED the appeal.

The direct effect of this decision is to uphold the Employment Tribunal’s findings that the Appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 and that the Respondent did not have actual or constructive knowledge of any such disability. No new precedent was established, as the decision turned on the particular facts of the case and the proper application of settled legal principles. The ruling confirms the limited scope for appellate intervention in factual findings of Employment Tribunals concerning disability discrimination claims.