The claimant suffered asymptotic prostate cancer, but after a prostatectomy, had suffered urinary incontinence. He appealed a finding of the tribunal and EAT that his condition was not a disability within the Act.
Held: The Schedule enlarged upon the definition of disability to give statutory protection to those with progressive conditions. The urinary incontinece was a consequence of that condition, and was within the Act. The situation would differ from case to case.
Judges:
Pill, Scott Baker, LJJ, Wilson J
Citations:
Times 28-Apr-2003
Statutes:
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 8(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – D H Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited EAT 17-Jul-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – D H Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited EAT 17-Jul-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.181620
