RESEARCH / VERSION 1.1 / 16 OCTOBER 2026
Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument
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.
| Field | Evidence |
|---|---|
| Reference period | 2021-03-05 |
| Coverage | England and Wales |
| Status | Reconsidered strike-out judgment |
| Source-check date | 2026-10-14 |
| Case reference | Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, 3328257/2019 and related claims |
| Court / tribunal | Employment Tribunal (Bury St Edmunds) |
| Issue | Excluded addiction; coexisting depression; reason for dismissal |
| Actual disposition | 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 / later history checked | This judgment varies an earlier judgment; further appeal history has not been verified. |
| Authority level | Employment Tribunal — first instance |
| Addiction / medication scope | Alcohol addiction argued to arise from depression; the effective reason for dismissal was central. |
| Targeted history check | The reviewed judgment varies an earlier order. Further appellate history remains unverified. |
| First-instance strike-out reasoning | The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that depression, rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer, would be established as the effective reason for dismissal. [Source: Paragraphs 17–21] |
| Operative/procedural reasoning | The unfair-dismissal claim was also struck out under the no-reasonable-prospect test. [Source: Paragraph 22] |
Paragraph-backed propositions
- The tribunal found no reasonable prospect that depression, rather than the alcohol-related behaviour identified by the employer, would be established as the effective reason for dismissal. Paragraphs 17–21 (First-instance strike-out reasoning)
- The unfair-dismissal claim was also struck out under the no-reasonable-prospect test. Paragraph 22 (Operative/procedural reasoning)
Interpretation limits
First-instance strike-out reasoning, not binding precedent.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.
Sources
- HMCTS: Wyrwal and Stempien-Wyrwal v Chapel Cottage Plants Ltd, reconsideration judgment — Judgment (PDF p. 1); paragraphs 15–22 (PDF pp. 3–5); signature date 5 March 2021.
- First-instance strike-out reasoning — Paragraphs 17–21
- Operative/procedural reasoning — Paragraph 22
Cite this record
Civil Liberties Action (2026). Addiction and employment law: Alcohol-related behaviour and an underlying depression argument. Record case-wyrwal-2021, version 1.1, 2026-10-16. https://cla-political-finance.copperchime4.chatgpt.site/databases/releases/2026-10-16-v1.1/records/cases/case-wyrwal-2021.html
Open the current interactive record · Dataset findings and methods