Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 27 May 1999

The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. Peter Clark J said: ‘There was no evidence as to the effect on day-to-day activities in the sense that no evidence was called from friends, family or colleagues. However, there was uncontested medical opinion evidence from the appellant’s General Practitioner and Consultant Clinical Psychologist that he was disabled within the meaning of the Act.’ Whilst it can be possible for a tribunal to reject uncontested medical evidence for good reason, here they had simply disregarded it. That was not acceptable, and this was a case where the EAT could substitute its own decision as to the facts.
Peter Clark J
[2000] IRLR 699, [1999] UKEAT 1004 – 98 – 2705, (2001) 57 BMLR 170
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1(1)
Citing:
CitedGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
CitedDobie v Burns International Security Services (UK) Ltd CA 14-May-1984
The employee worked as a security officer for the appellant, which was in turn employed by the respondent to provide security for an airport controlled by the Merseyside City Council. The Council had the right of approval of any employee of the . .
CitedHellyer Bros Limited v McLeod CA 1987
The employer appealed saying that the EAT had wrongly substituted its own opinion for that of the Tribunal.
Held: The appeal was rejected. Looking at the totality of the facts found or otherwise referred to in the decision of the Industrial . .
See AlsoKapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 19-Nov-1998
The Tribunal lifted the stay of the claimant’s claim of disability discrimination. . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromKapadia v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 4-Jul-2000
The claimant asserted disability discrimination, and consented to a medical report for the purpose of the claim. He was then to be obliged to consent to its release to the other party. To order otherwise would be contrary to the need for expeditious . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.465546