On 11 December 2025. Ed Carey successfully represented the appellant (claimant) in the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Singha v Diamond DCO Two Limited (in CVL), securing the remission of a key disability status issue for rehearing.
Successful EAT appeal
Sitting alone, the President of the Employment Appeal Tribunal, Lord Fairley, heard Mr Carey on behalf of the appellant in an appeal arising from proceedings in the Midlands (West) Employment Tribunal concerning claims of disability discrimination. The appeal focused on a preliminary hearing decision that the claimant, a former Human Resources Business Partner dismissed in November 2021, was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. The EAT allowed the appeal, setting aside the tribunal’s judgment and remitting the preliminary issue of disability status for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
Errors of law on disability
On the first ground of appeal, Mr Carey argued that the tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant’s disability impact statement said “very little” about any effect on normal day-to-day activities, and that there was “nothing in the GP records” to suggest difficulty with such activities, was clearly wrong. Lord Fairley accepted that submission, noting that the impact statement was “replete” with references to difficulties with basic daily activities, including conversations, washing, ironing, cooking, cleaning, watching television and attending social gatherings, and that no adverse credibility findings had been made.
The EAT held that the tribunal’s conclusion that the claimant had not met the “low bar” of establishing a substantial adverse effect was “difficult to understand” and must have involved ignoring relevant and material evidence, amounting to an error of law. Accordingly, the first ground of appeal was found to be well‑founded.
Long‑term effect and speculation
On the second ground, Mr Carey submitted that the tribunal had misapplied the “long term” test by speculating, without evidential basis, about what the claimant’s GP would have said in November 2021 as to the likely duration of the impairment. The EAT accepted that criticism, observing that while the GP records showed a link between the claimant’s stress and anxiety and his work situation, there was no material to justify a conclusion that the work issues were likely to be resolved quickly at the material time.
Lord Fairley held that the tribunal’s hypothesis as to the GP’s opinion was speculative and that its conclusion that the “could well happen” test for duration beyond 12 months was not met rested on a false premise. Ground 2 was therefore also upheld, and the appeal allowed in full.