The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, but he was dismissed because of his long-term sickness absence due to work-related stress. The Claimant contended that his dismissal amounted to an act of disability discrimination and/or was unfair, and in his ET claim he described his disability as work-related stress. The ET concluded, in relation to two periods of illness, that the Claimant's impairment was not long-term (as set out in Schedule 2 paragraph 1 EqA) and he did not meet the definition of being a disabled person. The Claimant appealed on the grounds that (1) the ET erred in focusing solely on the question whether the second period of illness had itself lasted 12 months (which it had not), rather than asking whether, at the date of dismissal, the effects of the impairment were likely to last at least 12 months or to recur, and (2) the ET erred in taking into account the fact that, because the cause of the Claimant's stress was removed (that is, his work for the Respondent), his impairment was not likely to last at least 12 months or to recur.

The EAT held that the ET had erred in considering that the likely duration of the effects of the Claimant's impairment was limited by his dismissal and, further, that it had erred in failing to consider that it had to spell out its separate findings on recurrence.