The ET found that the Claimant was disabled for the purposes of section 6 EqA by reason of what he contended were the long-term substantial effects of a mental impairment. The ET had not given any directions for expert medical evidence but relied on the Claimant's own evidence and contemporaneous medical documentation in reaching its conclusion that he had established he had suffered from the condition of which he complained for more than 12 months. The Respondent appealed on the bases that (1) that the ET had failed to follow relevant authority, in particular RBS v Morris and Royal Borough of Greenwich v Syed in proceeding to determine the question of disability without proper expert medical evidence; and (2) that the ET had misapplied section 6 EqA, finding that the Claimant was disabled on the basis merely that he had suffered from a mental impairment for a period of 12 to 18 months instead of considering whether the mental impairment had had an effect on the Claimant's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities which was both substantial and long-term.

The EAT allowed the appeal. The focus of the ET's reasoning had been on the length of time the Claimant's condition had lasted; it had failed to demonstrate that it had addressed the question of the effect of his condition, apparently falling into the error of assuming that, if a medical condition has existed for over 12 months, it did not need to further assess the effects of that condition.