Haven Leisure Loses Disability Discrimination Appeal: Tribunal Erred in Assessing Claimant's ASD and ADHD
The EAT has overturned a decision finding a claimant not disabled, highlighting errors in how the original tribunal assessed the impact of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
• public
Haven Leisure Faces New Tribunal Hearing After Disability Appeal Succeeds
Haven Leisure Ltd will face a fresh Employment Tribunal hearing after the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld an appeal by Mr. Harry Stedman, who claimed disability discrimination. The original tribunal had ruled that Mr. Stedman, who has diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), was not disabled under the Equality Act 2010.
Key Errors Identified in Original Tribunal Decision
Judge Stout, presiding over the EAT, identified several critical errors in the initial tribunal's assessment. The EAT emphasised that:
- It is sufficient for a claimant to demonstrate a substantial adverse effect on just one day-to-day activity due to an impairment.
- Tribunals must not weigh what a claimant cannot do against what they can do when assessing disability.
- The correct comparison is between the claimant's current abilities with the impairment and their hypothetical abilities without it.
The EAT found that the original tribunal focused excessively on what Mr. Stedman could do, such as performing in public and completing academic qualifications, rather than on the significant difficulties he faced due to his conditions.
Impact of ASD and ADHD Diagnoses
The EAT also clarified the relevance of ASD and ADHD diagnoses in disability assessments. While a diagnosis alone does not automatically qualify someone as disabled, tribunals must consider it as evidence of a clinically significant difference from the norm, impacting areas of functioning covered by the diagnosis, such as social interaction and concentration.
Specific Grounds for Appeal Success
The appeal succeeded on several grounds, including the tribunal's failure to adequately consider Mr. Stedman's difficulties in forming social relationships and using public transport when crowded. The EAT also found that the tribunal had not properly addressed aspects of Mr Stedman's disability impact statement relating to social exclusion and difficulties interacting with colleagues and customers.
Remittal to a Fresh Tribunal
As a result of these errors, the EAT set aside the original tribunal's decision and ordered a remittal to a new tribunal. Judge Stout concluded that the initial decision was "totally flawed" and that a fresh perspective was necessary to ensure a fair hearing.
Read the entire judgement here: Mr Harry Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd [2025] EAT 82
