Click the case name for better results:

K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal: CA 6 Mar 2007

The child was subject to the school eventually declined to clean and change him. The mother claimed that the school was discriminating. Held: The mother had understated the frequency of the bowel accidents. The school was not properly equipped to deal with them. The school head concluded that it could not sustain the placement out … Continue reading K v The School and the Special Needs and Disability Tribunal: CA 6 Mar 2007

Post Office v Adekeye: CA 13 Nov 1996

Race discrimination which took place after a dismissal was not unlawful within the section, since that first required the context of employment, and after the dismissal, the applicant was no longer in that employment. The natural meaning of the phrase ’employed by him’ in section 4 (2) was confined to persons employed at the time … Continue reading Post Office v Adekeye: CA 13 Nov 1996

London Borough of Camden v Pegg and Others: EAT 13 Apr 2012

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTSWorker, employee or neitherAgency relationshipsC was supplied by R2 (an employment agency) through R3 (another employment agency) to R1 (a local authority) for whom she worked as a Senior School Travel Planning Officer, fully integrated in R1’s organisation. C’s contract with R2 was described as a contract for services; it did not require … Continue reading London Borough of Camden v Pegg and Others: EAT 13 Apr 2012

Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wakefield: EAT 13 Sep 2010

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments Tribunal in finding a failure to make reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 failed to follow the guidance set out in Environment Agency v Rowan [2008] ICR 218. Judges: Ansell J Citations: [2010] UKEAT 0435 – 09 – 1309 Links: Bailii Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Wakefield: EAT 13 Sep 2010

Meyers v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 19 Jul 1995

EC directive on equal rights requires single parents to set off child care costs. A social security benefit designed to keep low income workers in employment or to encourage them into employment was within the scope of Directive 76/207/EC, not only as being directly related to access to employment, but also on the basis that … Continue reading Meyers v Adjudication Officer: ECJ 19 Jul 1995

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Law Hospitals NHS Trust v Rush: SCS 13 Jun 2001

The claimant had said that the effect of her dyslexia was to inhibit her career progress. Held:It was right for a tribunal to have regard to how an applicant could carry out duties at work in deciding whether she was within the Disability Discrimination Act. Evidence of how the claimant carries out normal day-to-day activities … Continue reading Law Hospitals NHS Trust v Rush: SCS 13 Jun 2001

McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 13 Oct 2010

The claimant said that the wihdrawal of overnight support to her at home was unlawful. Held: The claim failed. Her requirement was a need to urinate safely at night, which was satisfied by the new arrangement. Rix, Wilson LJJ, Sir David Keene [2010] EWCA Civ 1109, (2010) 13 CCL Rep 664, [2011] ACD 40 Bailii … Continue reading McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: CA 13 Oct 2010

Gallop v Newport City Council: CA 11 Dec 2013

An employer was not absolutely bound by the views of an Occupational Health Practitioner. Longmore, Rimer LJJ, Sir John Mummery [2013] EWCA Civ 1583 Bailii Disability Discrimination Act 1995 England and Wales Citing: Leave – Gallop v Newport City Council CA 31-Jan-2013 Application for leave to appeal – allowed. . . Cited by: Cited – … Continue reading Gallop v Newport City Council: CA 11 Dec 2013

Peregrine (Deceased) v Amazon.Co.Uk Ltd (Disability Discrimination : Reasonable Adjustments): EAT 20 Aug 2013

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments The Claimant had surgery for parotid cancer in 1998 and so was disabled under para 6A Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In 2009 he developed symptoms in his back which the treating physicians did not immediately link to the cancer. He died in 2011. The Respondent did not know, and … Continue reading Peregrine (Deceased) v Amazon.Co.Uk Ltd (Disability Discrimination : Reasonable Adjustments): EAT 20 Aug 2013

Croft Vets Ltd and Others v Butcher: EAT 2 Oct 2013

EAT Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments – The Respondent was employed by the Appellants as a reception and finance manager. She suffered from work-related stress and severe depression. She resigned from her employment when the Appellants did not act on the recommendations made by the clinical psychiatrist to whom they referred … Continue reading Croft Vets Ltd and Others v Butcher: EAT 2 Oct 2013

Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders: EAT 2 Jul 2013

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustmentsThe Employment Tribunal did not apply the structured approach in Rowan and Ashton to the Claimant’s claim for reasonable adjustments, or show that it considered s.4A(1) or (3) Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and did not answer a crucial question in its list of issues. The judgment and the consequential remedy … Continue reading Newham Sixth Form College v Sanders: EAT 2 Jul 2013

X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure): EAT 9 Aug 2018

Iniquity surpasses legal advice privilege PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal An Employment Judge struck out paragraphs of the Claimant’s claim as they depended on an email in respect of which legal advice privilege was claimed. In considering whether privilege could not be claimed as the advice in the email was … Continue reading X v Y Ltd (Practice and Procedure – Disclosure): EAT 9 Aug 2018

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the council sought possession when it discovered that he had sublet. Held: Section 23(3)(c) … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission: CA 25 Jul 2007

Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2): HL 20 Oct 1995

The applicant complained that she was dismissed when her employers learned that she was pregnant. Held: 1(1) (a) and 5(3) of the 1975 Act were to be interpreted as meaning that where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact that pregnancy was the reason for her temporary unavailability at a time … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2): HL 20 Oct 1995

Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority: EAT 1 Mar 1995

The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time. Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing discrimination: ‘the tribunal erred in law in failing to treat the acts complained of on regrading and failure to … Continue reading Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority: EAT 1 Mar 1995

McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College: EAT 13 Jul 2007

EAT Disability discrimination – DisabilityCompulsory admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act is not automatically a disability under the DDA 1995. In the circumstances of this case the severity of the Claimant’s condition did mean she had an impairment with a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities.In determining whether or not a condition … Continue reading McDougall v Richmond Adult Community College: EAT 13 Jul 2007

Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

Sympathetic construction of national legislation LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC Directive designed to protect companies and third parties from the adverse effects of the doctrine of nullity. … Continue reading Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA: ECJ 13 Nov 1990

The Prince’s Trust v Donelan (Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination): EAT 14 Mar 2013

EAT Disability Discrimination : Disability Related DiscriminationThe Respondent employer appealed against the findings of the Employment Tribunal that the Claimant had been subject to disability related discrimination and harassment. The principal ground of appeal was that the ET failed to appreciate the full impact of London Borough of Lewisham (2008) on the need for a … Continue reading The Prince’s Trust v Donelan (Disability Discrimination : Disability Related Discrimination): EAT 14 Mar 2013

Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs): EAT 6 Jun 2013

EAT Practice and Procedure : Costs – Tribunal orders that Appellant should pay Respondents one-third of their costs (estimated prior to assessment at andpound;260,000) on the basis that the claim was misconceived from the start.Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was no error of law in the Tribunal’s approach – In particular, it was not … Continue reading Vaughan v London Borough of Lewisham and Others (Practice and Procedure : Costs): EAT 6 Jun 2013

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts

Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: CA 15 Jul 2004

The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade organisation. Held: In the light of the rights and duties of … Continue reading Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: CA 15 Jul 2004

General Medical Council v H Cox: EAT 22 Mar 2002

Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not caught by the provisions. They appealed a finding against them. … Continue reading General Medical Council v H Cox: EAT 22 Mar 2002

Gill, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 26 Feb 2010

Failure to provide programme discriminated The claimant prisoner who had a learning disability said that he had been unable to complete the offending behaviour programmes because of his disability, that he had been kept in prison for much longer than he should have been as a consequence, and that the defendant should have made appropriate … Continue reading Gill, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: Admn 26 Feb 2010

Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. Judges: His Honour Peter Clark Citations: [2005] UKEAT 0318 – 05 – 2907, UKEAT/0319/05/TM, UKEAT/0318/05/TM, [2005] ICR 1647, UKEAT/0320/05/TM, [2005] IRLR 836 Links: Bailii, EATn Statutes: Employment Tribunal Rules 2004 20(1) … Continue reading Sodexho Ltd v Gibbons: EAT 14 Jul 2005

O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Mar 2007

The claimant suffered depression, and complained that the respondent’s reduction in her pay after long periods of sickness was discriminatory. She appealed decisions that it was not. She said that a reasonable adjustment would have been to continue her sick pay unreduced. Held: The claim was unrealistic since it did not recognise the effect of … Continue reading O’Hanlon v Revenue and Customs: CA 30 Mar 2007

FU v London Borough of Camden: EAT 30 Jan 2001

‘This appeal concerns the application of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to the situation where an employer is considering dismissal, or ill health retirement, due to the incapacity of the employee resulting in his or her long-term absence from work either in the past or anticipated for the future.’ Judges: Altman HHJ Citations: [2001] UKEAT … Continue reading FU v London Borough of Camden: EAT 30 Jan 2001

Wilcox v Birmingham Cab Services Ltd: EAT 23 Jun 2011

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Direct disability discriminationDISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustmentsUNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissalClaimant, working as a debt adviser, suffers from agoraphobia and travel anxiety – Resigns when Respondent refuses to move her to bureau closer to her home on a guaranteed permanent basis – Tribunal dismisses claim under section 3A (2) of Disability … Continue reading Wilcox v Birmingham Cab Services Ltd: EAT 23 Jun 2011

Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination. Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the reasonableness of making a possession order, and in situations where it was enforcing a possession … Continue reading Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz: CA 1 Jul 2004

Scottish Opera Ltd v Winning: EAT 9 Jun 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments Claimant incapacitated from driving duties as a result of a seizure – Dismissed – Claim originally pleaded as unfair dismissal – Seeks to amend to claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 that dismissal was the result of a failure to make … Continue reading Scottish Opera Ltd v Winning: EAT 9 Jun 2010

Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Malik: EAT 26 Jan 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Appellate jurisdiction / reasons / Burns-Barke DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION Inadequacy of reasons for Employment Tribunal findings in relation to s4(1) and (2) Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Observations on use of the Burns-Barke procedure. Late taking of new point on jurisdiction not permitted. Appeal allowed; case remitted for re-hearing by fresh Employment Tribunal. … Continue reading Peninsula Business Services Ltd v Malik: EAT 26 Jan 2010

Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions v Alam: EAT 9 Nov 2009

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATIONReasonable adjustmentsSection 4A(1) and (3) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.The Tribunal found that employer had failed to make a reasonable adjustment when it gave the Claimant a 12 month written warning for leaving work early without asking for or obtaining permission. On appeal, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held: no basis in fact … Continue reading Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions v Alam: EAT 9 Nov 2009

Sawyer v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus): EAT 26 Aug 2008

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Disability PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Striking-out/dismissal The Employment Judge correctly struck out the Claimant’s case as it was not reasonably arguable, on the evidence at a PHR, that the Claimant’s intolerance to temperatures below 27C was a disability within the DDA 1995. Citations: [2008] UKEAT 0133 – 08 – 2608 Links: Bailii Employment … Continue reading Sawyer v Secretary of State for the Department of Work and Pensions (Job Centre Plus): EAT 26 Aug 2008

N, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Independent Appeal Panel: CA 24 Feb 2009

The case of Malcolm has overruled Novacold. Toulson LJ said: ‘In Malcolm the House of Lords was concerned with the construction of the same phrase in Part III of the Act. It overruled the decision in Clark v Novacold and held that the proper comparator was someone who had behaved in the same way as … Continue reading N, Regina (on the Application of) v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Independent Appeal Panel: CA 24 Feb 2009

Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary: CA 24 Jun 2008

The claimant renewed her application for leave to appeal. She had been a probationary constable, but after various injuries came to suffer disability, preventing her being able to carry out the routine activities of as constable, and her employment had been terminated. The tribunal, having found her to be disabled, found also that the discrimination … Continue reading Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary: CA 24 Jun 2008

Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd: EAT 4 Jul 2008

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL: Constructive dismissal The Employment Tribunal held the employee had not been constructively dismissed. One of the complaints related to defects in the handling of the grievance procedure. The Tribunal held that they considered that the employers had acted unreasonably, but that applying the principle adopted in Abbey National plc v Fairbrother [2007] … Continue reading Claridge v Daler Rowney Ltd: EAT 4 Jul 2008

British Gas Trading Limited v Scott: EAT 23 Jan 2008

EAT Disability Discrimination – disabilityThe Claimant suffered a dislocation of her left knee cap on two occasions. She was a person who had an increased risk of dislocation of the patella. Between the first and second dislocations she made a complete recovery. Held: the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find the impairment continued though there … Continue reading British Gas Trading Limited v Scott: EAT 23 Jan 2008

Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary: EAT 6 Dec 2007

EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustmentsThe Tribunal found that the Chief Constable was entitled to terminate the services of a probationary constable who could not successfully complete her probationary period because certain disabilities prevented her from carrying out duties in a confrontational setting. It was not a reasonable adjustment to expect the Chief Constable to … Continue reading Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary: EAT 6 Dec 2007

Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 23 Jul 2007

EAT PART TIME WORKERSA police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because that was not a normal day-to-day activity. In so far as … Continue reading Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 23 Jul 2007

Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 25 May 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – DisabilityLangstaff QC R said: ‘The question whether the impact of the impairment is upon normal day-to-day activities is, of course, judged by asking whether or not any of the abilities, capacities, or capabilities (whichever expression is adopted) referred to in Paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule to the 1995 Act has been … Continue reading Ekpe v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: EAT 25 May 2001

London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood: EAT 18 Sep 2001

The employee developed a series of headaches. He was off work for many weeks, and the company cut his sick pay. He claimed disability discrimination. The company claimed he was not being paid because he was not at work, the company having exercised its discretion to stop payment of sick pay generally. The correct question … Continue reading London Clubs Management Ltd v Hood: EAT 18 Sep 2001

Taylor v OCS Group Ltd: CA 31 May 2006

The employer appealed against findings of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The employee worked in IT. He was profoundly deaf, but could lip read and read sign language. He had been accused of obtaining improper access to a senior staff member’s emails. During the disciplinary hearing, he had been assisted by an interpreter for part … Continue reading Taylor v OCS Group Ltd: CA 31 May 2006

1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act. Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract … Continue reading 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage. … Continue reading Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

The Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Society for the Blind v Begg: EAT 31 Mar 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure -and- Disability DiscriminationAppellant’s application to raise a new point on appeal (that the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 applies to Disability Discrimination Act 1995 section 8(3) damages) was refused as the Employment Tribunal had already decided, at its liability hearing, to deduct 40% from unfair dismissal compensation and had not … Continue reading The Blackpool Fylde and Wyre Society for the Blind v Begg: EAT 31 Mar 2005

Williams v J Walter Thompson Group Ltd: CA 17 Feb 2005

In giving their decision, the court reminded tribunals when preparing their judgments, to make sure the reasons were user friendly. Here time had been wasted with confusion about the Roman Numerals used to number the reasons. Judges: Mummery LJ, Chadwick LJ, Tuckey LJ Citations: [2005] EWCA Civ 133, Times 05-Apr-2005, [2005] IRLR 376 Links: Bailii … Continue reading Williams v J Walter Thompson Group Ltd: CA 17 Feb 2005

Ross v Ryanair Ltd and Another: CA 21 Dec 2004

The claimant said that the airline and airport had failed to provide proper access arrangements for him as a disabled person. No wheelchair had been provided to transfer him through the airport to the airplane. Held: It was the duty of both defendants to provide such facilities. It was no defence that better facilities were … Continue reading Ross v Ryanair Ltd and Another: CA 21 Dec 2004

Gbokoyi v Bennett’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed against dismissal of her unfair dismissal and of her maternity related discrimination claim. Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it does not appear that the tribunal gave any separate consideration to whether the pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of Mrs Gbokoyi and, insofar as it relied on the reasons which … Continue reading Gbokoyi v Bennett’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2002

Dhedhi v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 22 Jan 2002

The Employment Tribunal had decided that a Polkey discount was to be made. At a subsequent remedies and review hearing, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to re-open that issue and having heard evidence, the Tribunal altered the percentage Polkey discount in favour of the appellant. Held: There was no suggestion in the original decision that … Continue reading Dhedhi v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust: EAT 22 Jan 2002

Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: … Continue reading Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – OtherThe employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying diagnoses. The company doctor came to consider it would be a long time before she could return. She was dismissed for capability. Held: There was … Continue reading Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000

Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 7 Dec 2001

EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some earlier date the future would then have seem to hold, to have regard to what the future in … Continue reading Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 7 Dec 2001

Regina v Powys County Council, ex parte Jenny Diane Hambidge: Admn 28 Apr 1999

Citations: [1999] EWHC Admin 371 Links: Bailii Statutes: Disability Discrimination Act 1995 20 Cited by: Appeal from – Regina v Powys County Council, Ex Parte Hambidge (No 2) CA 16-Mar-2000 Where a local authority raised the care charges for facilities and services provided to disabled people charging different rates according to the benefits received, and … Continue reading Regina v Powys County Council, ex parte Jenny Diane Hambidge: Admn 28 Apr 1999

Thetford Corporation And Others v Fiamma Spa And Others: ECJ 30 Jun 1988

The court considered a reference to the European Court on assumed facts where the domestic court had not yet established those facts. Europa In the present state of Community law, characterized by the absence of harmonization of the patents legislation of the Member States, and in the absence of international conventions in force providing to … Continue reading Thetford Corporation And Others v Fiamma Spa And Others: ECJ 30 Jun 1988

Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 3 Feb 1999

Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not impaired. ‘The tribunal should bear in mind that with social legislation of this kind, a … Continue reading Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 3 Feb 1999

Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903

A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should be valued as at the beginning of the period or at its value during the … Continue reading Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co: HL 1903

Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’): HL 28 Mar 2007

The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq war broke out, under which the charterer could have terminated the charter as of right. The defendant … Continue reading Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’): HL 28 Mar 2007

D G Moncrieff (Farmers) v MacDonald: EAT 1978

The ability of a tribunal to revisit its own judgments, the review procedure, was only appropriate for use in exceptional circumstances. Citations: [1978] IRLR 112 Cited by: Cited – Trimble v Supertravel Ltd EAT 1982 The Industrial Tribunal had held that the appellant’s dismissal was unfair but then decided that she had failed to mitigate … Continue reading D G Moncrieff (Farmers) v MacDonald: EAT 1978

Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd: EAT 28 Aug 2001

Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological disability. The employees appealed a refusal that they be considered to suffer a disability. ‘Impairment’, has to mean some … Continue reading Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd: EAT 28 Aug 2001

Stec and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Apr 2006

(Grand Chamber) The claimants said that differences between the sexes in the payment of reduced earning allowances and retirement allowances were sex discrimination. Held: The differences were not infringing sex discrimination. The differences arose from the differences in pensionable ages for men and women introduced in 1940 in order to help remedy severe social inequalities … Continue reading Stec and Others v United Kingdom: ECHR 12 Apr 2006

AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Standing to Claim under A1P1 ECHR The appellants had written employers’ liability insurance policies. They appealed against rejection of their challenge to the 2009 Act which provided that asymptomatic pleural plaques, pleural thickening and asbestosis should constitute actionable harm for the purposes of an action of damages for personal injury. Held: The insurers’ appeals failed. … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Ltd and Others v Lord Advocate and Others: SC 12 Oct 2011

Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales): SC 9 Feb 2015

The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered. Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence of the Welsh Assembly, in that it did not relate to any of the subjects listed … Continue reading Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales): SC 9 Feb 2015

DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory. Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to encourage claimants back into work. It was said that thus contradicted the other policy of providing no free … Continue reading DA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 15 May 2019

Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in ambulances in the framework of an emergency service run by the German Red Cross – Definition of ‘road transport’ – Maximum weekly working … Continue reading Pfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1): ECJ 5 Oct 2004

Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother: EAT 12 Jan 2007

EAT Unfair Dismissal Disability discrimination The Tribunal had found a dismissal to be unfair because of flaws in a grievance procedure, following which the Claimant had resigned. They also found that the Claimant, who suffered an obsessive compulsive disorder, was subjected to taunts that she would not have had inflicted on her if she had … Continue reading Abbey National Plc v Fairbrother: EAT 12 Jan 2007

Pay v Lancashire Probation Service: EAT 29 Oct 2003

The appellant challenged refusal of his claim for unfair dismissal. A probation officer, he had business interests in fire breathing and bondage merchandising which the service said were incompatible with his duties, and dismissed him. He complained that this infringed his right to freedom of expression. Held: A public authority had to respect an employee’s … Continue reading Pay v Lancashire Probation Service: EAT 29 Oct 2003

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make reasonable adjustments. Held: The authority’s appeal succeeded. … Continue reading London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm: HL 25 Jun 2008

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 27 Feb 2003

The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination. Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It had asked first whether there had been less favourable treatment, and then asked why there had … Continue reading Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: HL 27 Feb 2003

The Department for Work and Pensions v Conyers: EAT 5 Nov 2014

EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Perversity – Disability – whether evidence to support finding – The Claimant had two periods of absence during the latter part of her employment. She had conceded in her witness statement and evidence that she was not a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability … Continue reading The Department for Work and Pensions v Conyers: EAT 5 Nov 2014

General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza: EAT 10 Oct 2014

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Reasonableness of dismissal The Employment Tribunal, by a majority, found that the Respondent was in breach of a duty to make reasonable adjustments for the Claimant because it would have been a reasonable adjustment to disregard a final written warning. Held: (1) The majority had been … Continue reading General Dynamics Information Technology Ltd v Carranza: EAT 10 Oct 2014

Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1): HL 3 Mar 1993

Questions on pregnancy dismissals included unavailability at required time. The correct comparison under the Act of 1975 was between the pregnant woman and: ‘a hypothetical man who would also be unavailable at the critical time. The relevant circumstance for the purposes of the comparison required by section 5(3) to be made is expected unavailability at … Continue reading Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 1): HL 3 Mar 1993

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 6 Jul 2011

The claimant, a former prima ballerina, had suffered injury as she grew old. She came to suffer a condition requiring her to urinate at several points during each night. The respondent had been providing a carer to stay with her each night to provide the assistance neceesary to access the commode. The claimant now appealed … Continue reading McDonald, Regina (on The Application of) v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea: SC 6 Jul 2011

Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield: CA 12 Oct 2010

The claimant sought a declaration that the duty set out in the 1995 Act applies to the discharge of duties, and to the exercise of powers, by local housing authorities under Part VII of the Housing Act 1996 being the part entitled ‘Homelessness’. The defendant argued that (1) the section concerned only the general formulation … Continue reading Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield: CA 12 Oct 2010

Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 16 Mar 1989

The twelve applicants had been unfairly dismissed by the transferor immediately before the transfer, and for a reason connected with the transfer under section 8(1). The question was whether the liability for unfair dismissal compensation transferred to the transferee. Held: It is the duty of a UK court to construe a statute, so far as … Continue reading Litster and Others v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd: HL 16 Mar 1989

Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 18 Dec 2008

Having ‘due regard’ is not Obligation to do The claimant sought to challenge the decision to close her local post office on the basis that being retired and disabled and without a car in a rural area, the office was essential and the decision unsupportable. In particular she challenged the removal of post offices from … Continue reading Brown, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Admn 18 Dec 2008

Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International: HL 12 Jun 1997

Allowance of Stigma Damages The employees claimed damages, saying that the way in which their employer had behaved during their employment had led to continuing losses, ‘stigma damages’ after the termination. Held: It is an implied term of any contract of employment that the employer shall not without reasonable and proper cause conduct itself in … Continue reading Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI); Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International: HL 12 Jun 1997

X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another: SC 12 Dec 2012

The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had found no contractual relationship. She said that under the 2000 Directive (the Framework Directive ‘FD’) … Continue reading X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another: SC 12 Dec 2012

McDonald, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough Of Kensington and Chelsea: Admn 5 Mar 2009

The claimant, a former ballerina, challenged the respondent’s decision limiting the care package provided to her in the form of overnight toileting assistance. She said that the change violated her Article 8 rights Frances Patterson QC J [2009] EWHC 1582 (Admin), (2009) 12 CCL Rep 421 Bailii Disability Discrimination Act 1995, European Convention on Human … Continue reading McDonald, Regina (On the Application of) v London Borough Of Kensington and Chelsea: Admn 5 Mar 2009

Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall: CA 17 Jan 2008

The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that condition. She appealed against refusal of her claim for disability discrimination. The evidence suggested that … Continue reading Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall: CA 17 Jan 2008

Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott: EAT 11 Mar 2011

EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – S. 98A (2) Employment Rights Act DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability related discrimination DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Reasonable adjustments DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Compensation Claimant goes off sick following incident of alleged offensive behaviour by manager – Existing mental health difficulties exacerbated – Employers fail, despite recommendation from occupational health department, to carry out … Continue reading Tameside Hospital NHS Foundation Trust v Mylott: EAT 11 Mar 2011

Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised. Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an Industrial Tribunal is not … Continue reading Meek v City of Birmingham District Council: CA 18 Feb 1987

Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000

Clients sued their solicitors for negligence. The solicitors responded by claiming that, when acting as advocates, they had the same immunities granted to barristers. Held: The immunity from suit for negligence enjoyed by advocates acting in both criminal and civil proceedings is no longer appropriate or in the public interest and is removed: ‘The standard … Continue reading Arthur JS Hall and Co (A Firm) v Simons; Barratt v Woolf Seddon (A Firm); Harris v Schofield Roberts and Hill (A Firm): HL 20 Jul 2000