The Claimant was employed by the Respondent from 2008, and there was some tension from the outset due to the relaxed attitude taken by the Claimant to matters such as observing office hours and documenting his activities. In 2013, the Claimant was in a state of "extreme paranoia" but, from 2014 onwards, this did not appear to affect his day-to-day activities. In 2017, the Claimant was dismissed, and the reasons given were his attitude and the fact that he was not considered to have the skillset to fulfil his role in the business. The Claimant brought proceedings in the ET for unfair dismissal, direct and indirect disability discrimination, failure to make reasonable adjustments and unlawful deduction of wages. The ET upheld the Claimant's claim of unfair dismissal, on the basis that the Respondent had not established the reason for dismissal as being a potentially fair reason for the dismissal and that the dismissal was procedurally unfair, but the remaining claims – including that the Claimant was disabled – were dismissed. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that the ET had erred in concluding (1) that he was not disabled, and (2) that the Respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of his disability.

The EAT held that the ET, in concluding that the Claimant was not disabled and that the Respondent lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the Claimant's disability, had taken into account all relevant considerations and had come to a conclusion that it was entitled to reach.