{
  "id": "cases",
  "title": "Addiction and employment law",
  "release": "2026-10-14",
  "coverage": "12 selected cases with original judgment sources. Includes procedural rulings, merits decisions and appeals; not a complete case-law search.",
  "method": "Selected relevant decisions, not an exhaustive legal database or a measure of discrimination prevalence. Findings, allegations and procedural rulings are distinguished. First-instance tribunal decisions do not create binding precedents. A case summary is not advice about an individual situation. Appeal history is reported only to the extent checked; absence of an identified appeal is not confirmation that none exists. Unnecessary personal medical details are omitted.",
  "method_notes": [
    "Jurisdiction and procedural stage are shown on every case. Linked preliminary, merits and remedy judgments are retained where needed to understand a later outcome. Northern Ireland is not covered."
  ],
  "update_note": "Fixed release; original source dates and review scope are shown per record.",
  "records": [
    {
      "id": "case-atherton-2026",
      "title": "Disability status is separate from proving discriminatory treatment",
      "summary": "The 2024 preliminary judgment found disability and explained that a possible contribution from cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment: addiction was not the impairment relied upon. It expressly left causation and employer knowledge unresolved. After the final hearing in 2026 the tribunal dismissed the claims.",
      "category": "Separate impairment",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2026-05-06",
      "status": "Final merits judgment following preliminary disability ruling",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, 2409466/2023"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Separate impairment; cannabis-use argument; disability status versus liability"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Disability-related unfavourable-treatment, indirect-discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and breach-of-contract claims all dismissed on the merits on 6 May 2026. The earlier finding of disability was not itself a finding of discrimination."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Both the preliminary ruling and the later final judgment/reasons have been verified. Any subsequent appeal has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-atherton-v-3dgbire-ltd-2409466-slash-2023",
          "title": "HMCTS: Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, preliminary and final judgments",
          "locator": "31 July 2024 preliminary judgment, paragraphs 15–21; 6 May 2026 final judgment, paragraphs 1–4."
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf",
          "title": "Preliminary judgment",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf",
          "title": "Final judgment",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf",
          "title": "Final reasons",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance decisions. This is not a finding that cannabis addiction qualifies as disability, nor that disability-status success establishes employer liability.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-atherton-2026",
        "title": "Disability status is separate from proving discriminatory treatment",
        "case_reference": "Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, 2409466/2023",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)",
        "date": "2026-05-06",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Separate impairment; cannabis-use argument; disability status versus liability",
        "summary": "The 2024 preliminary judgment found disability and explained that a possible contribution from cannabis use did not exclude a separate impairment: addiction was not the impairment relied upon. It expressly left causation and employer knowledge unresolved. After the final hearing in 2026 the tribunal dismissed the claims.",
        "outcome": "Disability-related unfavourable-treatment, indirect-discrimination, reasonable-adjustment and breach-of-contract claims all dismissed on the merits on 6 May 2026. The earlier finding of disability was not itself a finding of discrimination.",
        "appeal_status": "Both the preliminary ruling and the later final judgment/reasons have been verified. Any subsequent appeal has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-j-atherton-v-3dgbire-ltd-2409466-slash-2023",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Atherton v 3DGBIRE Ltd, preliminary and final judgments",
        "source_locator": "31 July 2024 preliminary judgment, paragraphs 15–21; 6 May 2026 final judgment, paragraphs 1–4.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance decisions. This is not a finding that cannabis addiction qualifies as disability, nor that disability-status success establishes employer liability.",
        "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment following preliminary disability ruling",
        "tags": [
          "Separate impairment",
          "Disability evidence",
          "Employer knowledge"
        ],
        "additional_sources": [
          {
            "title": "Preliminary judgment",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66c30c952e8f04b086cdf38e/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Ltd_-_2409466_2023.pdf"
          },
          {
            "title": "Final judgment",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a3a5a2cc6e94f095f3efc96/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_-_2409466_2023_-_Judgment.pdf"
          },
          {
            "title": "Final reasons",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a79d0cc0a700895e2d7a034/Mr_J_Atherton_v_3DGBIRE_Limited_2409466-2023.pdf"
          }
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Manchester)",
        "2026-05-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-truman-2026-eat54",
      "title": "Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments",
      "summary": "A rail worker prescribed cannabis for a disabling physical condition failed a drug test and was refused a Sentinel card. The EAT upheld the finding that Network Rail was a qualifications body and the finding concerning a competence standard, but found an error in the comparison used for the reasonable-adjustment claim against Network Rail.",
      "category": "Prescribed medication",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2026-05-01",
      "status": "Appeal; partial remittal",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54; EA-2024-000852-NK"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Prescribed medication; reasonable adjustments; safety-critical work"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Appeal partly allowed: specified reasonable-adjustment issues against Network Rail remitted to the Employment Tribunal. Appeal against Powerlines dismissed. Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal about section 111 liability."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "This is an appeal judgment. The ordered remittal is verified; no subsequent remittal result or further appeal has been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54",
          "locator": "Summary, PDF pp. 2–3; paragraphs 156–160 (PDF p. 56)."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "This concerns prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability, not a finding that addiction itself is protected. The EAT did not finally determine the remitted reasonable-adjustment claim.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-truman-2026-eat54",
        "title": "Prescribed cannabis, rail certification and reasonable adjustments",
        "case_reference": "Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54; EA-2024-000852-NK",
        "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal",
        "date": "2026-05-01",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Prescribed medication; reasonable adjustments; safety-critical work",
        "summary": "A rail worker prescribed cannabis for a disabling physical condition failed a drug test and was refused a Sentinel card. The EAT upheld the finding that Network Rail was a qualifications body and the finding concerning a competence standard, but found an error in the comparison used for the reasonable-adjustment claim against Network Rail.",
        "outcome": "Appeal partly allowed: specified reasonable-adjustment issues against Network Rail remitted to the Employment Tribunal. Appeal against Powerlines dismissed. Express Medicals succeeded on its separate cross-appeal about section 111 liability.",
        "appeal_status": "This is an appeal judgment. The ordered remittal is verified; no subsequent remittal result or further appeal has been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69f468987c02660a84d1ebc5/Mr_J_Truman_v__1__SPL_Powerlines_UK_Ltd__2__Network_Rail_Infrastructure_Ltd__3__Express_Medicals_Ltd__2026__EAT_54.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd and others [2026] EAT 54",
        "source_locator": "Summary, PDF pp. 2–3; paragraphs 156–160 (PDF p. 56).",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "This concerns prescribed treatment for a separate physical disability, not a finding that addiction itself is protected. The EAT did not finally determine the remitted reasonable-adjustment claim.",
        "procedural_stage": "Appeal; partial remittal",
        "tags": [
          "Prescribed medication",
          "Reasonable adjustments",
          "Safety-critical work"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Appeal Tribunal",
        "2026-05-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-smith-2026",
      "title": "Drug-use allegations and a separate established disability",
      "summary": "The tribunal distinguished a contention that drug use exacerbated existing disabilities from a contention that the impairment relied upon was addiction. It found that the established disabilities predated drug use and that the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known of them. Some discrimination and harassment complaints succeeded and others failed.",
      "category": "Coexisting impairment",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2026-04-20",
      "status": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, 3314144/2023"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Coexisting impairment; substance-use arguments; disability discrimination"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Two section 15 complaints and three disability-related harassment complaints succeeded; other discrimination complaints were dismissed. Pay and annual-leave complaints also succeeded. The remedy judgment of 20 July 2026 ordered a total award of £27,060.77."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Liability, written reasons and remedy verified. No appellate outcome has been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-smith-v-addingtons-associates-ltd-3314144-slash-2023",
          "title": "HMCTS: Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, judgments, reasons and remedy",
          "locator": "Liability judgment, paragraphs 1–7; final reasons, paragraph 135; remedy judgment, paragraphs 1–2."
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf",
          "title": "Final reasons",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf",
          "title": "Remedy judgment",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance mixed outcome. No finding that addiction was itself the protected impairment. This record does not classify the claimant as having an addiction.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-smith-2026",
        "title": "Drug-use allegations and a separate established disability",
        "case_reference": "Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, 3314144/2023",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)",
        "date": "2026-04-20",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Coexisting impairment; substance-use arguments; disability discrimination",
        "summary": "The tribunal distinguished a contention that drug use exacerbated existing disabilities from a contention that the impairment relied upon was addiction. It found that the established disabilities predated drug use and that the employer knew or ought reasonably to have known of them. Some discrimination and harassment complaints succeeded and others failed.",
        "outcome": "Two section 15 complaints and three disability-related harassment complaints succeeded; other discrimination complaints were dismissed. Pay and annual-leave complaints also succeeded. The remedy judgment of 20 July 2026 ordered a total award of £27,060.77.",
        "appeal_status": "Liability, written reasons and remedy verified. No appellate outcome has been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mr-s-smith-v-addingtons-associates-ltd-3314144-slash-2023",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Smith v Addingtons Associates Ltd, judgments, reasons and remedy",
        "source_locator": "Liability judgment, paragraphs 1–7; final reasons, paragraph 135; remedy judgment, paragraphs 1–2.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance mixed outcome. No finding that addiction was itself the protected impairment. This record does not classify the claimant as having an addiction.",
        "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined",
        "tags": [
          "Coexisting impairment",
          "Employer knowledge",
          "Harassment"
        ],
        "additional_sources": [
          {
            "title": "Final reasons",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a54f891c3d64d94cacab8aa/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Reasons_2.pdf"
          },
          {
            "title": "Remedy judgment",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6a623748abcde513b38b6e00/Mr_S_Smith_v_Addingtons_Associates_Limited_3314144.2023_Remedy_Judgment.pdf"
          }
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Cambridge)",
        "2026-04-20"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-davidson-2025-eat151",
      "title": "Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation",
      "summary": "A coach driver was dismissed after failing an alcohol test. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair only because the internal appeal was unfair, rejected wrongful dismissal and reduced compensation. The EAT rejected challenges to the tribunal’s reasoning on those matters but identified an error in its calculation of future loss.",
      "category": "Misconduct",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2025-10-21",
      "status": "Appeal; remedy remittal",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151; EA-2024-000081-OO"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Alcohol-related misconduct; unfair dismissal; remedy"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Calculation of the underlying compensatory loss remitted for fresh consideration. Challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasoning on Polkey, contributory conduct and wrongful dismissal failed."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "This is an appeal judgment. Remittal on compensation verified; subsequent remedy determination and further appeal not verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151",
          "locator": "Summary (PDF p. 2); paragraphs 1–4 and final conclusion."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "An alcohol-testing misconduct case, not a finding of addiction or a disability-discrimination ruling. A finding of procedural unfairness does not mean that the underlying conduct was acceptable.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-davidson-2025-eat151",
        "title": "Alcohol testing, fair procedure and compensation",
        "case_reference": "Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151; EA-2024-000081-OO",
        "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal",
        "date": "2025-10-21",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Alcohol-related misconduct; unfair dismissal; remedy",
        "summary": "A coach driver was dismissed after failing an alcohol test. The Employment Tribunal found dismissal unfair only because the internal appeal was unfair, rejected wrongful dismissal and reduced compensation. The EAT rejected challenges to the tribunal’s reasoning on those matters but identified an error in its calculation of future loss.",
        "outcome": "Calculation of the underlying compensatory loss remitted for fresh consideration. Challenges concerning the tribunal’s reasoning on Polkey, contributory conduct and wrongful dismissal failed.",
        "appeal_status": "This is an appeal judgment. Remittal on compensation verified; subsequent remedy determination and further appeal not verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68f755ce0cef4b4e32f12d9a/Ms_J_Davidson_v_National_Express_Ltd__2025__EAT_151.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Davidson v National Express Ltd [2025] EAT 151",
        "source_locator": "Summary (PDF p. 2); paragraphs 1–4 and final conclusion.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "An alcohol-testing misconduct case, not a finding of addiction or a disability-discrimination ruling. A finding of procedural unfairness does not mean that the underlying conduct was acceptable.",
        "procedural_stage": "Appeal; remedy remittal",
        "tags": [
          "Misconduct",
          "Unfair dismissal",
          "Remedy"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Appeal Tribunal",
        "2025-10-21"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-anderson-2024",
      "title": "Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence",
      "summary": "The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved the relied-upon impairment and its required effects at the relevant time. It expressly declined to infer addiction from habitual cannabis use alone. It distinguished medically prescribed cannabis, whose treatment effects could in principle be discounted, from non-prescribed use, while finding the necessary evidence insufficient.",
      "category": "Prescribed medication",
      "geography": "Scotland",
      "period": "2024-05-16",
      "status": "Preliminary hearing; disability-status determination",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd and Careys plc, 8000461/2023"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Disability evidence; prescribed cannabis; addiction not inferred from repeated use"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Discrimination complaints dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the statutory disability requirements had not been established."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Preliminary judgment verified; any later appeal or reconsideration has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd, preliminary judgment",
          "locator": "Operative judgment; paragraphs 81–93, particularly 87–90; signature date 16 May 2024."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance evidential ruling on this record. It is not a general finding that a childhood diagnosis expires, that prescribed cannabis prevents disability status, or that repeated cannabis use proves addiction.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-anderson-2024",
        "title": "Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence",
        "case_reference": "Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd and Careys plc, 8000461/2023",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)",
        "date": "2024-05-16",
        "jurisdiction": "Scotland",
        "issue": "Disability evidence; prescribed cannabis; addiction not inferred from repeated use",
        "summary": "The tribunal held that the claimant had not proved the relied-upon impairment and its required effects at the relevant time. It expressly declined to infer addiction from habitual cannabis use alone. It distinguished medically prescribed cannabis, whose treatment effects could in principle be discounted, from non-prescribed use, while finding the necessary evidence insufficient.",
        "outcome": "Discrimination complaints dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the statutory disability requirements had not been established.",
        "appeal_status": "Preliminary judgment verified; any later appeal or reconsideration has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/668271e47d26b2be17a4b4bb/S_Anderson_v_P.J._CAREY__CONTRACTORS__LIMITED-8000461-2023-Judgment.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd, preliminary judgment",
        "source_locator": "Operative judgment; paragraphs 81–93, particularly 87–90; signature date 16 May 2024.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance evidential ruling on this record. It is not a general finding that a childhood diagnosis expires, that prescribed cannabis prevents disability status, or that repeated cannabis use proves addiction.",
        "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; disability-status determination",
        "tags": [
          "Prescribed medication",
          "Disability evidence",
          "Separate impairment"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh)",
        "2024-05-16"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-were-2022",
      "title": "Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules",
      "summary": "At a preliminary hearing the tribunal considered withdrawal of registration following non-disclosure of convictions. It assumed disability for that hearing rather than deciding disability status. It concluded that the disability-discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, addressing the excluded-condition rules and the reason for withdrawal.",
      "category": "Excluded addiction",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2022-04-07",
      "status": "Preliminary hearing; strike-out",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, 2308268/2020"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (London South)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Addiction; coexisting mental-health impairment; causation; strike-out"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Disability-discrimination claim struck out. The unfair-dismissal claim was struck out for insufficient service; the contract claim was also struck out. Written reasons are dated 3 May 2022."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "No later appeal or reconsideration outcome has been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, judgment at preliminary hearing",
          "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 22–32 (PDF pp. 7–9)."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance strike-out decision, not a merits trial or binding precedent. The tribunal expressly did not determine disability status. It must not be generalised into a rule that any past conviction defeats a discrimination claim.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-were-2022",
        "title": "Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules",
        "case_reference": "Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, 2308268/2020",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (London South)",
        "date": "2022-04-07",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Addiction; coexisting mental-health impairment; causation; strike-out",
        "summary": "At a preliminary hearing the tribunal considered withdrawal of registration following non-disclosure of convictions. It assumed disability for that hearing rather than deciding disability status. It concluded that the disability-discrimination claim had no reasonable prospect of success, addressing the excluded-condition rules and the reason for withdrawal.",
        "outcome": "Disability-discrimination claim struck out. The unfair-dismissal claim was struck out for insufficient service; the contract claim was also struck out. Written reasons are dated 3 May 2022.",
        "appeal_status": "No later appeal or reconsideration outcome has been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/62a1c66dd3bf7f0372734790/Ms_N_Were_v_NHS_Professionsals_Ltd_2308268-2020.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, judgment at preliminary hearing",
        "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 22–32 (PDF pp. 7–9).",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance strike-out decision, not a merits trial or binding precedent. The tribunal expressly did not determine disability status. It must not be generalised into a rule that any past conviction defeats a discrimination claim.",
        "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; strike-out",
        "tags": [
          "Excluded addiction",
          "Coexisting impairment",
          "Strike-out"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (London South)",
        "2022-04-07"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-freeman-2021",
      "title": "Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time",
      "summary": "The tribunal considered whether claims could proceed despite a delay. On the evidence of the claimant’s condition, treatment and help with submitting the claim, it held that timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims had not been reasonably practicable and that the eight-day delay was reasonable. It treated the disability-discrimination claims as in time.",
      "category": "Access to justice",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2021-05-26",
      "status": "Preliminary hearing; time limits",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, 2307164/2020"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (London South)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Access to justice; addiction treatment; time limits"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claims. This decision did not decide whether the employer had discriminated or dismissed unfairly."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Later merits decision and any appeal have not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, judgment with reasons",
          "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 6–10, 35–45 and 77–95."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance procedural ruling on this evidence. It is not an automatic extension of tribunal deadlines for anyone entering treatment, and is not a finding that addiction qualifies as a disability.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-freeman-2021",
        "title": "Treatment and the practical ability to bring a claim in time",
        "case_reference": "A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, 2307164/2020",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (London South)",
        "date": "2021-05-26",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Access to justice; addiction treatment; time limits",
        "summary": "The tribunal considered whether claims could proceed despite a delay. On the evidence of the claimant’s condition, treatment and help with submitting the claim, it held that timely presentation of the unfair-dismissal and wage claims had not been reasonably practicable and that the eight-day delay was reasonable. It treated the disability-discrimination claims as in time.",
        "outcome": "Tribunal accepted jurisdiction to hear the claims. This decision did not decide whether the employer had discriminated or dismissed unfairly.",
        "appeal_status": "Later merits decision and any appeal have not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1ca3ed3bf7f4bd4662bdc/Ms_R_Freeman_v_Sainsbury_s_Supermarkets_Ltd_2307164-2020.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: A Freeman v Sainsbury Supermarkets Ltd, judgment with reasons",
        "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 6–10, 35–45 and 77–95.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance procedural ruling on this evidence. It is not an automatic extension of tribunal deadlines for anyone entering treatment, and is not a finding that addiction qualifies as a disability.",
        "procedural_stage": "Preliminary hearing; time limits",
        "tags": [
          "Access to justice",
          "Treatment",
          "Time limits"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (London South)",
        "2021-05-26"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-wyrwal-2021",
      "title": "Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument",
      "summary": "The first claimant argued that alcohol addiction arose from depression. In the reconsidered strike-out judgment, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the effective reason for dismissal would be found to be the underlying depression rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer.",
      "category": "Excluded addiction",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2021-03-05",
      "status": "Reconsidered strike-out judgment",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, 3328257/2019 and related claims"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Excluded addiction; coexisting depression; reason for dismissal"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "The first claimant’s disability-discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also disposed of related claims."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "This judgment varies an earlier judgment; further appeal history has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, reconsideration judgment",
          "locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 15–22 (PDF pp. 3–5); signature date 5 March 2021."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance strike-out reasoning, not binding precedent. The decision does not hold that every person with both depression and addiction lacks disability protection. Source contains typographical inconsistencies in some related claim numbers; the principal case number is used here.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-wyrwal-2021",
        "title": "Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument",
        "case_reference": "Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, 3328257/2019 and related claims",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)",
        "date": "2021-03-05",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Excluded addiction; coexisting depression; reason for dismissal",
        "summary": "The first claimant argued that alcohol addiction arose from depression. In the reconsidered strike-out judgment, the tribunal found no reasonable prospect that the effective reason for dismissal would be found to be the underlying depression rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer.",
        "outcome": "The first claimant’s disability-discrimination and unfair-dismissal claims were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also disposed of related claims.",
        "appeal_status": "This judgment varies an earlier judgment; further appeal history has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60508e40d3bf7f1d10e505b5/Mr_J_Wyrwal___Mrs_A_Stempien-Wyrwal_v_Chapel_Cottage_Plants_Ltd_3328257-19_RECONSIDERATION_JUDGMENT_.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, reconsideration judgment",
        "source_locator": "Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 15–22 (PDF pp. 3–5); signature date 5 March 2021.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance strike-out reasoning, not binding precedent. The decision does not hold that every person with both depression and addiction lacks disability protection. Source contains typographical inconsistencies in some related claim numbers; the principal case number is used here.",
        "procedural_stage": "Reconsidered strike-out judgment",
        "tags": [
          "Excluded addiction",
          "Coexisting impairment",
          "Misconduct",
          "Strike-out"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds)",
        "2021-03-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-morgan-2021",
      "title": "Coexisting mental-health disability and a supported return to work",
      "summary": "On the medical and other evidence, the tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability despite alcohol and prescription-medication misuse. It found that the employer ought reasonably to have known of the disability and upheld claims concerning discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal.",
      "category": "Coexisting impairment",
      "geography": "Scotland",
      "period": "2021-02-10",
      "status": "Final merits and remedy judgment",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, 4103070/2019"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Coexisting mental-health impairment; employer knowledge; reasonable adjustments"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Claims under Equality Act sections 15, 20 and 21 and constructive unfair dismissal succeeded against the company; compensation was £20,727.46. Harassment and claims against the individual respondents were dismissed."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Final first-instance judgment verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, final judgment",
          "locator": "Operative judgment (PDF pp. 1–2); paragraphs 217–218 and 257–259."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance decision on detailed evidence; it does not establish that substance misuse by itself is a disability. The 2019 preliminary decision was followed by this final judgment and should not be counted as a second independent case.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-morgan-2021",
        "title": "Coexisting mental-health disability and a supported return to work",
        "case_reference": "Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, 4103070/2019",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)",
        "date": "2021-02-10",
        "jurisdiction": "Scotland",
        "issue": "Coexisting mental-health impairment; employer knowledge; reasonable adjustments",
        "summary": "On the medical and other evidence, the tribunal found a qualifying mental-health disability despite alcohol and prescription-medication misuse. It found that the employer ought reasonably to have known of the disability and upheld claims concerning discrimination arising from disability, reasonable adjustments and constructive unfair dismissal.",
        "outcome": "Claims under Equality Act sections 15, 20 and 21 and constructive unfair dismissal succeeded against the company; compensation was £20,727.46. Harassment and claims against the individual respondents were dismissed.",
        "appeal_status": "Final first-instance judgment verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/607064f8d3bf7f401659fd74/Mr_L_Morgan_v_Clearwater_Fire_Limited_and_Others_4103070.2019.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Morgan v Clearwater Fire Ltd and others, final judgment",
        "source_locator": "Operative judgment (PDF pp. 1–2); paragraphs 217–218 and 257–259.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance decision on detailed evidence; it does not establish that substance misuse by itself is a disability. The 2019 preliminary decision was followed by this final judgment and should not be counted as a second independent case.",
        "procedural_stage": "Final merits and remedy judgment",
        "tags": [
          "Coexisting impairment",
          "Reasonable adjustments",
          "Employer knowledge",
          "Unfair dismissal"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Aberdeen)",
        "2021-02-10"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-rowley-2019",
      "title": "The origin of dependency and proof of a separate impairment",
      "summary": "The tribunal found that the stated depressive impairment and the required effects of separate work-related stress had not been established on the evidence. It also found that the dependency had not originally arisen from medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply on these facts.",
      "category": "Excluded addiction",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2019-04-29",
      "status": "Disability-status determination",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, 1811127/2018"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Excluded addiction; medically prescribed-drug exception; disability evidence"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Claimant found not disabled for these claims; section 15 discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims dismissed. A separate unfair-dismissal claim was later dismissed by a judgment dated 3 February 2020."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "The official case page contains later unfair-dismissal and reconsideration documents; no appellate judgment has been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, disability judgment and reasons",
          "locator": "Judgment and paragraphs 5–11; later judgment linked on the GOV.UK case page."
        },
        {
          "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-s-rowley-v-department-for-work-and-pensions-1811127-2018",
          "title": "GOV.UK case page with later decisions",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance disability-status decision with evidential limitations recorded by the judge. It is not authority that all impairments caused by addiction are excluded. Later prescribing to treat an existing dependency was distinguished from dependency originally caused by prescribed treatment.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-rowley-2019",
        "title": "The origin of dependency and proof of a separate impairment",
        "case_reference": "Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, 1811127/2018",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)",
        "date": "2019-04-29",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Excluded addiction; medically prescribed-drug exception; disability evidence",
        "summary": "The tribunal found that the stated depressive impairment and the required effects of separate work-related stress had not been established on the evidence. It also found that the dependency had not originally arisen from medically prescribed drugs, so the regulation 3(2) exception did not apply on these facts.",
        "outcome": "Claimant found not disabled for these claims; section 15 discrimination and reasonable-adjustment claims dismissed. A separate unfair-dismissal claim was later dismissed by a judgment dated 3 February 2020.",
        "appeal_status": "The official case page contains later unfair-dismissal and reconsideration documents; no appellate judgment has been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5cc9a255ed915d5dc3e50dc8/Ms_S_Rowley_v_Department_for_Work_and_Pensions_-_1811127.2018_-_Final.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Rowley v Department for Work and Pensions, disability judgment and reasons",
        "source_locator": "Judgment and paragraphs 5–11; later judgment linked on the GOV.UK case page.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance disability-status decision with evidential limitations recorded by the judge. It is not authority that all impairments caused by addiction are excluded. Later prescribing to treat an existing dependency was distinguished from dependency originally caused by prescribed treatment.",
        "procedural_stage": "Disability-status determination",
        "tags": [
          "Excluded addiction",
          "Prescribed medication",
          "Disability evidence"
        ],
        "additional_sources": [
          {
            "title": "GOV.UK case page with later decisions",
            "url": "https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/ms-s-rowley-v-department-for-work-and-pensions-1811127-2018"
          }
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)",
        "2019-04-29"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-glassford-2018",
      "title": "Late disclosure of a drinking problem during a disciplinary appeal",
      "summary": "After an unauthorised absence during a period of suspended dismissal, the employee disclosed an alcohol problem at the internal appeal. The EAT considered whether the appeal should have been paused for further investigation. It held that the tribunal had adequately considered the material and was entitled to find the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.",
      "category": "Disclosure",
      "geography": "Scotland",
      "period": "2018-11-14",
      "status": "Appeal; dismissed",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, UKEATS/0012/18/JW"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Unfair dismissal; disclosure; reasonable investigation"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "Employee’s appeal dismissed; the tribunal’s finding of fair dismissal stood."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "EAT judgment verified; any further appeal has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, reserved appeal judgment",
          "locator": "Summary (PDF p. 3); paragraphs 1–4 and the concluding analysis."
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "An unfair-dismissal appeal concerning a particular disciplinary history and the investigation undertaken. It does not create a general rule that an employer may disregard a disclosure of dependency or decline all further investigation.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-glassford-2018",
        "title": "Late disclosure of a drinking problem during a disciplinary appeal",
        "case_reference": "Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, UKEATS/0012/18/JW",
        "court": "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)",
        "date": "2018-11-14",
        "jurisdiction": "Scotland",
        "issue": "Unfair dismissal; disclosure; reasonable investigation",
        "summary": "After an unauthorised absence during a period of suspended dismissal, the employee disclosed an alcohol problem at the internal appeal. The EAT considered whether the appeal should have been paused for further investigation. It held that the tribunal had adequately considered the material and was entitled to find the employer acted within the range of reasonable responses.",
        "outcome": "Employee’s appeal dismissed; the tribunal’s finding of fair dismissal stood.",
        "appeal_status": "EAT judgment verified; any further appeal has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c6fef09ed915d4a30a2e7d5/Brian_Keith_Glassford_v_Royal_Mail_Group_Limited_UKEATS_0012_18_JW.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Glassford v Royal Mail Group Ltd, reserved appeal judgment",
        "source_locator": "Summary (PDF p. 3); paragraphs 1–4 and the concluding analysis.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "An unfair-dismissal appeal concerning a particular disciplinary history and the investigation undertaken. It does not create a general rule that an employer may disregard a disclosure of dependency or decline all further investigation.",
        "procedural_stage": "Appeal; dismissed",
        "tags": [
          "Disclosure",
          "Misconduct",
          "Unfair dismissal"
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Appeal Tribunal (Scotland)",
        "2018-11-14"
      ]
    },
    {
      "id": "case-bannister-2017",
      "title": "Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal",
      "summary": "The tribunal upheld a reasonable-adjustment complaint and a section 15 dismissal complaint. It found that the employee’s reaction to a required workplace move, arising from depression, caused the relevant absence and that an adjustment could have enabled her return. It considered and rejected alternative explanations for that absence, including the alcohol-dependency argument.",
      "category": "Coexisting impairment",
      "geography": "England and Wales",
      "period": "2017-03-30",
      "status": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined",
      "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
      "details": [
        {
          "label": "Case reference",
          "value": "Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, 2500750/2016"
        },
        {
          "label": "Court / tribunal",
          "value": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)"
        },
        {
          "label": "Issue",
          "value": "Coexisting depression; reasonable adjustments; absence dismissal"
        },
        {
          "label": "Actual disposition",
          "value": "The two disability-discrimination complaints considered at the final hearing succeeded. A separate remedy judgment dated 23 August 2017 ordered compensation of £75,294.89."
        },
        {
          "label": "Appeal / later history checked",
          "value": "Liability and remedy judgments verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified."
        }
      ],
      "sources": [
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf",
          "title": "HMCTS: Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, reserved judgment",
          "locator": "Paragraphs 18–23 and 40–47; separate remedy judgment, operative order."
        },
        {
          "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf",
          "title": "Remedy judgment",
          "locator": "",
          "note": ""
        }
      ],
      "limitations": "First-instance case concerning depression and specific adjustments, not a holding that alcohol dependency itself is a disability. Other parts of the original claim had already been dismissed before this final hearing.",
      "raw": {
        "id": "case-bannister-2017",
        "title": "Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal",
        "case_reference": "Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, 2500750/2016",
        "court": "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)",
        "date": "2017-03-30",
        "jurisdiction": "England and Wales",
        "issue": "Coexisting depression; reasonable adjustments; absence dismissal",
        "summary": "The tribunal upheld a reasonable-adjustment complaint and a section 15 dismissal complaint. It found that the employee’s reaction to a required workplace move, arising from depression, caused the relevant absence and that an adjustment could have enabled her return. It considered and rejected alternative explanations for that absence, including the alcohol-dependency argument.",
        "outcome": "The two disability-discrimination complaints considered at the final hearing succeeded. A separate remedy judgment dated 23 August 2017 ordered compensation of £75,294.89.",
        "appeal_status": "Liability and remedy judgments verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified.",
        "source_url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3912340f0b6122ed1e5e4/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Final.pdf",
        "source_title": "HMCTS: Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, reserved judgment",
        "source_locator": "Paragraphs 18–23 and 40–47; separate remedy judgment, operative order.",
        "reviewed_at": "2026-10-14",
        "limitations": "First-instance case concerning depression and specific adjustments, not a holding that alcohol dependency itself is a disability. Other parts of the original claim had already been dismissed before this final hearing.",
        "procedural_stage": "Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined",
        "tags": [
          "Coexisting impairment",
          "Reasonable adjustments",
          "Absence dismissal"
        ],
        "additional_sources": [
          {
            "title": "Remedy judgment",
            "url": "https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/59b3924340f0b6122ed1e5e6/Ms_L_J_Bannister_v_The_Commissioners_for_Her_Majesty_s_Revenue_and_Customs_2500750.2016_-_Remedy.pdf"
          }
        ]
      },
      "highlights": [
        "Employment Tribunal (Leeds)",
        "2017-03-30"
      ]
    }
  ]
}