Diamond DCO Two Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation)
Decision Overview
Case Summary
An EAT appeal of an ET decision dismissing disability discrimination and victimisation claims. The appellant, dismissed from his HR role in November 2021, had been unable to establish disability status at the preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Gaskell. The EAT found the ET erred in its assessment of evidence regarding the substantial and long-term nature of the adverse effects from stress, anxiety and depression, allowing that appeal and remitting for fresh determination. The victimisation appeal was dismissed as the ET's factual findings on causation were not perverse.
Why this outcome?
Claim not well-foundedThe ET erred in law by ignoring material evidence in the disability impact statement which contained numerous references to day-to-day activities affected to more than a trivial degree, and by speculating without evidential basis that work issues would be resolved within a short period. The victimisation appeal failed because the ET's factual findings that performance concerns were genuine and the sole reason for detriments, while surprising, were not perverse and fell within the Tribunal's legitimate assessment of credibility and weight of evidence.
Claim Types
Key Issues
- •Whether appellant established disability status under Equality Act 2010
- •Whether adverse effect of mental impairment (stress, anxiety, depression) was substantial
- •Whether adverse effect was long-term
- •Whether detriments in victimisation complaint were caused by protected act
- •Burden of proof in disability discrimination and victimisation claims
Cited Laws and Legal Issues
An EAT appeal of an ET decision dismissing disability discrimination and victimisation claims.
Decision Text
Judgment approved by the Court A Singha v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd © EAT 2025 Page 1 [2025] EAT 203 Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EAT 203 Case Nos: EA-2024-000831-DXA EA-2024-001374-DXA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL Rolls Building Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NL Date: 11 December 2025 Before: THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY (PRESIDENT) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between: MR A SINGHA Appellant - and – LLOYDS PHARMACY LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS DIAMOND DCO TWO LIMITED (IN CREDITORS’ VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) Respondent - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr Ed Carey, of Counsel, for the Appellant No appearance for the Respondent Hearing date: 11 December 2025 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT Judgment approved by the Court A Singha v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd © EAT 2025 Page 2 [2025] EAT 203 SUMMARY Disability discrimination; disability status; substantial and long-term advrse effect Victimisation; causation of detriment The appellant’s complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation were each dismissed by the Employment Tribunal. On appeal, the appellant submitted that the Tribunal had (i) erred in its assessment of the evidence of the effect of his disability on day-to-day activities; and (ii) erred in its assessment of causation in the victimisation compliant. Held: The Tribunal had erred in the first but not the second respect. The appeal against dismissal of the victimisation complaint was refused. The appeal against dismissal of the complaint of disability discrimination was allowed and the question of disability status to a differently constituted tribunal. Judgment approved by the Court A Singha v Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd © EAT 2025 Page 3 [2025] EAT 203 THE HON. LORD FAIRLEY: 1. The appellant was employed as a human resources business partner with Lloyds Pharmacy Limited, now...
Case Facts
- Claimant
- Mr A Singha
- Case Number
- [2025] EAT 203
- Appeal result
- Appeal dismissed · Remitted
- Tribunal
- Employment Appeal Tribunal
- Level
- Appeal
- Decision Date
- 11 December 2025
- Published
- 23 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge The Hon. Lord Fairley
- Representation
- Legally represented