noor_ukbaEAT2012
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Extension of time: just and equitable
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Preliminary issues
The Claimant contended he had been discriminated against and victimised on account of his disability in a long sequence of events. The Respondent acknowledged there was proximity between all of the events and for that reason sought a stay while it conducted a comprehensive investigation. The Employment Tribunal was wrong to hold that there was not a continuing act at least during the three months prior to the presentation of the claim. Since it was arguable that there was a continuing act throughout all of the period this matter should not be determined at a PHR as it was but should go to a full hearing where the facts could be determined. The Tribunal had wrongly determined that issue estoppel applied to the Claimant’s case. He had presented a claim of disability against the same Respondent in 2005 on account of dyslexia and dyspraxia. But in the current claim he was contending disability by reason of dyslexia, dyspraxia and depressive illness brought on or by exacerbated by his treatment and he had medical evidence provided to the employer of that. That issue had formed no part of the 2005 case and issue estoppel did not apply. The Claimant had an alterable status and so on a change was entitled to present his changed status as an impairment within the meaning of the DDA 1995.
McMullen QC J
[2012] UKEAT 0546 – 11 – 3007
Bailii
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.463350
