Site icon swarb.co.uk

A Power v Panasonic UK Ltd: EAT 17 Sep 2002

EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from depression.
Held: The tribunal should have determined whether the depression constituted an impairment within the meaning of the Act without inquiring into its cause. ‘Further, in our judgment, the employment tribunal erred in its approach, as evidenced in the last sentence of paragraph 24 of its decision. It is not material to a decision as to whether a person is suffering a disability within the meaning of the Act, to consider how the impairment from which they are suffering was caused. What is material is to ascertain whether the disability from which they are suffering at the material time is a disability within the meaning of the Act or whether, where it is relevant as in this case, it is an impairment which is excluded by reason of the Regulations from being treated as such a disability.’

Judges:

Ms Recorder Slade QC

Citations:

EAT/747/01, [2003] IRLR 151, [2002] UKEAT 747 – 01 – 1709

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoPower v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 24-Jan-2002
. .

Cited by:

FollowedHutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
CitedCouncil 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 . .
CitedLondon 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178225

Exit mobile version