Harry Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd

Harry Stedman v Haven Leisure Ltd

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test for disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, including failing to focus on what the claimant could not do, failing to consider whether substantial adverse effect existed in relation to individual day-to-day activities, and failing to properly engage with the evidence of the claimant's difficulties. The Tribunal's reasoning was perverse on the facts found and for the reasons given.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Harry Stedman; Respondent: Haven Leisure Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Definition of Disability, Equality Act 2010, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Equality Act 2010 Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Harry Stedman

Appellant

Haven Leisure Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in finding the claimant was not disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to apply the correct legal test for 'substantial adverse effect'
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to properly consider or give reasons for the claimant's evidence of difficulties with day-to-day activities

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the correct legal test for disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010, including failing to focus on what the claimant could not do, failing to consider whether substantial adverse effect existed in relation to individual day-to-day activities, and failing to properly engage with the evidence of the claimant's difficulties. The Tribunal's reasoning was perverse on the facts found and for the reasons given.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision set aside; case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for reconsideration.

Orders

  • Decision of the Employment Tribunal is set aside.
  • Matter remitted to a new Employment Tribunal to determine afresh whether the claimant is disabled within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.