The claimant suffered from a variety symptoms which caused him significant difficulty in his daily life. None of these symptoms were attributable to a recognisable pathological or mental cause, and were instead regarded as functional overlay accentuated by his obesity. The genuineness of the symptoms and their effects were not challenged.

The EAT ruled that the ET had been wrong to conclude that, because no physical or mental cause could be identified, the claimant was did not have a disability within the meaning of the DDA. He should instead have considered the effect of the impairments stemming from the obesity, not their cause: "...what a Tribunal must concentrate on in considering whether an individual is disabled is whether he