RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules
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.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2022-04-07 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Preliminary hearing; strike-out |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, 2308268/2020 |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Tribunal (London South) |
| Issue | Addiction; coexisting mental-health impairment; causation; strike-out |
| Actual disposition | 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 / later history checked | No later appeal or reconsideration outcome has been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Tribunal — first instance |
| Addiction / medication scope | Addiction and a separate mental-health impairment discussed; disability status assumed only for the application. |
| Targeted history check | No verified later outcome; not a general rule that a conviction defeats a discrimination claim. |
| Procedural assumption | The tribunal assumed disability for the strike-out hearing because it could not determine status without medical records. [Source: Paragraphs 25–26] |
| First-instance strike-out reasoning | It held on that application that non-disclosure and the convictions, rather than the mental-health conditions, caused withdrawal of registration, and struck the discrimination claim out. [Source: Paragraphs 27–31] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- The tribunal assumed disability for the strike-out hearing because it could not determine status without medical records. Paragraphs 25–26 (Procedural assumption)
- It held on that application that non-disclosure and the convictions, rather than the mental-health conditions, caused withdrawal of registration, and struck the discrimination claim out. Paragraphs 27–31 (First-instance strike-out reasoning)
Interpretation limits
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.
Sources
- HMCTS: Were v NHS Professionals Ltd, judgment at preliminary hearing — Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 22–32 (PDF pp. 7–9).
- Procedural assumption — Paragraphs 25–26
- First-instance strike-out reasoning — Paragraphs 27–31
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Conviction disclosure and the excluded-condition rules. Record case-were-2022, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-were-2022.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods