EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
The Claimant’s claims included disability discrimination claims arising out of anxiety and depression. The Claimant refused to co-operate with the obtaining of a psychiatric report by the Respondent, declining to attend any of three experts put forward by the Respondent, while obtaining his own psychiatric report. The Tribunal determined that his refusal was unjustified, but declined to stay or strike out the claim in any way, deciding that it would hear the claim with no expert psychiatric evidence on either side.
Held: the Tribunal erred in law. It should have applied the test in Lane v Willis [1972] I WLR 333; if it had done so it would have concluded that the Respondent, given the issues in this case, could not properly prepare its case without expert evidence – it was significantly disadvantaged without the opportunity to obtain such evidence. Order substituted of the kind suggested in Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology [2010] IRLR 238.
Judges:
David Richardson J
Citations:
[2012] UKEAT 0373 – 12 – 0608
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Lane v Willis CA 1972
An order for the medical examination of a party to an action is an invasion of personal liberty, and and should only be granted when it is reasonable in the interests of justice so to order, and when the refusal of a medical examination is alleged . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.463769