AB v CD Ltd

AB v CD Ltd

The claimant failed to establish the existence of an impairment or disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, as no medical evidence was provided and the alleged psychological aversion was unsupported. The philosophical belief as pleaded lacked cogency and cohesion, failing the Grainger criteria. The respondent's mask policy was applied equally, with no evidence of group or individual disadvantage, and no disparate treatment. The appeal was dismissed as no error of law was found in the Tribunal's conclusions.

Parties
Appellant: AB; Respondent: CD Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Religion or Belief Discrimination, Protected Characteristics, Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Philosophical Belief, Reasonable Adjustments
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Religion or Belief Discrimination Protected Characteristics Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Philosophical Belief +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AB

Appellant

CD Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant had a disability within the meaning of s.6 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's philosophical belief in bodily autonomy and integrity is protected under s.10 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's mask policy amounted to direct or indirect discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish the existence of an impairment or disability within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010, as no medical evidence was provided and the alleged psychological aversion was unsupported. The philosophical belief as pleaded lacked cogency and cohesion, failing the Grainger criteria. The respondent's mask policy was applied equally, with no evidence of group or individual disadvantage, and no disparate treatment. The appeal was dismissed as no error of law was found in the Tribunal's conclusions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed