RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal
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.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2017-03-30 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Final merits judgment; remedy subsequently determined |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, 2500750/2016 |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Tribunal (Leeds) |
| Issue | Coexisting depression; reasonable adjustments; absence dismissal |
| Actual disposition | 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 / later history checked | Liability and remedy judgments verified; later appeal or reconsideration outcome has not been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Tribunal — first instance |
| Addiction / medication scope | Depression and an alcohol-dependency alternative explanation; the tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression. |
| Targeted history check | Later appellate/reconsideration outcome unverified. |
| First-instance application | Allowing a short period at the existing desk was a reasonable adjustment on these facts; other adjustments already offered did not discharge that obligation. [Source: Paragraphs 35–40] |
| First-instance causation and justification | The tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression and held the dismissal unjustified in light of the adjustment that could have enabled return. [Source: Paragraphs 42–47] |
| Operative remedy | The later remedy order awarded £75,294.89. [Source: Remedy judgment, operative order] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- Allowing a short period at the existing desk was a reasonable adjustment on these facts; other adjustments already offered did not discharge that obligation. Paragraphs 35–40 (First-instance application)
- The tribunal attributed the relevant absence to depression and held the dismissal unjustified in light of the adjustment that could have enabled return. Paragraphs 42–47 (First-instance causation and justification)
- The later remedy order awarded £75,294.89. Remedy judgment, operative order (Operative remedy)
Interpretation limits
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.
Sources
- HMCTS: Bannister v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs, reserved judgment — Paragraphs 18–23 and 40–47; separate remedy judgment, operative order.
- Remedy judgment
- First-instance application — Paragraphs 35–40
- First-instance causation and justification — Paragraphs 42–47
- Operative remedy — Remedy judgment, operative order
- Remedy judgment — 2017-08-23
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Depression, alcohol dependency and adjustments before dismissal. Record case-bannister-2017, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-bannister-2017.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods