Jack Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd and Express Medicals Ltd [2026] EAT 54

Susan Chan, representing the Claimant (C), has successfully appealed the employment tribunal’s judgment dismissing this disability discrimination claim.

C had enjoyed a life-long career in the rail maintenance industry, which was cut short when he failed a drug test to get a Sentinel Card to start a new job; the card being necessary for working in safety-critical rail industry. The Sentinel Card is issued by Network Rail and dependent on drugs tests administered by approved medical testers, including Express Medicals who administered C’s drug test. C was taking cannabis-based medication prescribed for his disability of genetic hemochromatosis. Under Network Rail’s drug-testing mandatory policy, which stipulate that a drug test fail will be converted to a pass for pre-declared drug-based medications in defined circumstances, C should have passed. However, due to the testers not following Network Rail’s policy, C failed his drug test with the consequence that his new job offer was withdrawn, and he was banned from working in the rail industry for 5 years.  

C had lost at tribunal because the tribunal found that the qualifications body Network Rail, was applying a “competence standard” when awarding Sentinel Cards, and s.53(7) of the Equality Act 2010 prevents the application of such a standard being disability discrimination, although there is an express duty on qualifications bodies to make reasonable adjustments under s.53(6) EqA. Yet the tribunal had expressed serious reservations about its decision, stating that it believed “the claimant has suffered an injustice”.

Mr Justice Soole in the EAT allowed C’s appeal, finding that whilst the tribunal was correct to conclude that the section 15 EqA 2010 ‘something arising from disability’ claim did not succeed, because Network Rail were applying a ‘competence standard’ when testing for drugs before issuing Sentinel Cards, the tribunal had potentially erred in its treatment of the reasonable adjustments claim. Network Rail’s policy for adjusting a test result to take account of legitimate drug-based medications was an “adjustment” that facilitated the ability of a disabled person to demonstrate that they had met the competence standard. The tribunal had correctly identified the appropriate comparator as a non-disabled person who failed the drug test, but the tribunal’s reasoning on whether C as a disabled person had suffered comparative disadvantage compared to a non-disabled person who failed the test due to recreational drug use, was unclear. Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration of the failure to make reasonable adjustments claim against Network Rail. 

The EAT allowed Express Medicals’ cross-appeal that it had caused Network Rail to discriminate under s.111(2) EqA. This was because section111(7) EqA requires the ‘causer’ of discrimination (“A”) to be in a relationship with the person caused to act in a discriminatory way (“B”), whereby A is in a position to commit a “basic contravention” in relation to B. Soole J found that such “basic contravention” required A to be capable of instructing, causing or inducing discrimination against B. As testers Express Medicals (A) were not in a position to discriminate against Network Rail (B), nor could they be liable for causing B to discriminate against C under s.111(2) EqA.  

Jack Truman v SPL Powerlines UK Ltd, Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd and Express Medicals Ltd judgment

7th May 2026

Susan Chan

Call 1994