RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence
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.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2024-05-16 |
| Coverage | Scotland |
| Status | Preliminary hearing; disability-status determination |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd and Careys plc, 8000461/2023 |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Tribunal (Scotland, Edinburgh) |
| Issue | Disability evidence; prescribed cannabis; addiction not inferred from repeated use |
| Actual disposition | Discrimination complaints dismissed for want of jurisdiction because the statutory disability requirements had not been established. |
| Appeal / later history checked | Preliminary judgment verified; any later appeal or reconsideration has not been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Tribunal — first instance |
| Addiction / medication scope | Habitual cannabis use was discussed, but addiction was expressly not inferred. |
| Targeted history check | Targeted case-name/number search did not verify an appeal or reconsideration. Avoid the broader claim that childhood ADHD diagnoses expire. |
| Express factual limit | Habitual daily cannabis use alone was insufficient evidence for a finding of addiction. [Source: Paragraph 87] |
| First-instance evidence assessment | Medically prescribed cannabis could fall within the treatment-disregard provisions, but evidence of its effects and of the relied-on impairment was insufficient on this record. [Source: Paragraphs 89–93] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- Habitual daily cannabis use alone was insufficient evidence for a finding of addiction. Paragraph 87 (Express factual limit)
- Medically prescribed cannabis could fall within the treatment-disregard provisions, but evidence of its effects and of the relied-on impairment was insufficient on this record. Paragraphs 89–93 (First-instance evidence assessment)
Interpretation limits
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.
Sources
- HMCTS: Anderson v P J Carey (Contractors) Ltd, preliminary judgment — Operative judgment; paragraphs 81–93, particularly 87–90; signature date 16 May 2024.
- Express factual limit — Paragraph 87
- First-instance evidence assessment — Paragraphs 89–93
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Cannabis use, prescribed treatment and disability evidence. Record case-anderson-2024, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-anderson-2024.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods