HM Land Registry v Wakefield: EAT 17 Dec 2008

hmlr_wakefieldEAT2008

EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
The claimant applied for promotion to a more senior management post. He was disabled by his stammer. The employers made various adjustments to the interview process as a result; but they did not agree to dispense with an interview altogether. The ET found that there had been a failure to make reasonable adjustments. Held on appeal:
(1) that the ET’s conclusion that an expert’s report advised dispensing with a formal interview unless it could not reasonably be avoided was perverse; that was not what the expert had advised.
(2) that the ET’s conclusion that there was no oral content in the post for which the claimant had applied was also perverse
(3) that the ET’s assertion that if a disabled employee honestly asserted an entitlement to an adjustment the employers were bound to make it unless they could establish good reason for not doing so was wrong in law.
The ET’s decision reversed.
Comments made
(1) on the unjustifiable use of strong and vivid language in ET judgments HM Prison Service v Johnson [2007] IRLR 95 followed
(ii) on the undesirability of the ET, when asked a question or to supply notes by the EAT, providing self-justificatory or argumentative responses.
Burke QC J
[2008] UKEAT 0530 – 08 – 1712
Bailii
Citing:
CitedHM Prison Service v Johnson EAT 6-Aug-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less Favourable Treatment / Reasonable Adjustments / Justification
The Claimant was a prison psychologist who developed a depressive illness amounting to a disability within . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 February 2021; Ref: scu.278872