Allerton C&S SW Ltd

Case Summary

This was a preliminary hearing to determine the claimant's disability status under the Equality Act 2010. The claimant sustained a back injury in August 2023 whilst working for a previous employer, and subsequently suffered head and back injuries on 23 July 2024 whilst employed by the respondent. The tribunal found the claimant was a disabled person by reason of the back injury with effect from 23 July 2024, but was not disabled by reason of the head injury.

The tribunal found that the claimant had a back condition causing substantial and long-term impairment of normal day-to-day activities, evidenced by chronic back pain requiring regular prescribed painkillers including opioid medication, physiotherapy, and ongoing medical intervention. The head injury was classified as minor by hospital discharge and did not result in substantial long-term impairment meeting the disability threshold.

• •Whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of back injury sustained on 23 July 2024
• •Whether the claimant was a disabled person by reason of head injury sustained on 23 July 2024
• •Disability status under the Equality Act 2010

1 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS BETWEEN ClaimantRespondent Mr Yong Han Andy Tan AND Allerton C&S SW Limited JUDGMENT OF THE EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL HELD BY VIDEO (CVP)ON15 April 2026 EMPLOYMENT JUDGE N J Roper Representation For the Claimant:In person For the Respondent: Mr C Johnson, Tribunal Advocate JUDGMENT The judgment of the tribunal is that the claimant was a disabled person by reason of a back injury with effect from 23 July 2024, but he was not a disabled person by reason of his head injury arising on the same date. REASONS 1. This is the judgment following a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person at the material times. 2. This has been a remote hearing on the papers which has been consented to by the parties. The form of remote hearing was by Cloud Video Platform. A face-to-face hearing was not held because it was not practicable, and all issues could be determined in a remote hearing. The documents that I was referred to are in a bundle of 239 pages, with an additional email of six pages, the contents of which I have recorded. 3. I have heard from the claimant, who gave evidence having submitted a Disability Impact Statement. Mr Johnson questioned the claimant on his evidence, and he made submissions on behalf of the respondent. 4. There was a degree of conflict on the evidence. I found the following facts proven on the balance of probabilities after considering the whole of the evidence, both oral and documentary, and after listening to the factual and legal submissions made by and on behalf of the respective parties. 5. The Facts: 6. The respondent company provides care for vulnerable clients, and the claimant was employed as a Senior Support Worker from 18 September 2023 until his dismissal which 2 took effect on 18 September 2024. On 2 August 2023 whilst working for a…