Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall: CA 17 Jan 2008

The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that condition. She appealed against refusal of her claim for disability discrimination. The evidence suggested that her condition should not now affect her day to day activities.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it is on the basis of evidence as to circumstances prevailing at the time of that decision that the Employment Tribunal should make its judgment as to whether unlawful discrimination by the employer has been established. The central purpose of the Act is to prevent discriminatory decisions and to provide sanctions if such decisions are made. Whether an employer has committed such a wrong must, in my judgment, be judged on the basis of the evidence available at the time of the decision complained of.’

Pill, Sedley, Rimer LJJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 4, [2008] IRLR 227, [2008] ICR 431
Bailii
Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .
CitedGolden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha (‘The Golden Victory’) HL 28-Mar-2007
The claimant sought damages for repudiation of a charterparty. The charterpary had been intended to continue until 2005. The charterer repudiated the contract and that repudiation was accepted, but before the arbitrator could set his award, the Iraq . .
CitedCurwen v James CA 1963
An appeal court had a discretion to hear relevant evidence of events after the date of judgment, in this case a change in circumstances of the victim’s widow, when considering a claim for damages for personal injury, where that evidence would . .
CitedBarker v Westbridge International Ltd EAT 19-May-1999
. .
CitedGreenwood v British Airways Plc EAT 17-Jun-1999
The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal.
Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the . .
CitedI Barker v Westbridge International Ltd EAT 8-Jun-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
CitedLatchman v Reed Business Information Ltd EAT 7-Dec-2001
EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some . .
CitedSwift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary EAT 25-Nov-2003
The EAT upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that the claimant had not shown that her disability was likely to recur. However: ‘In considering whether during a particular period in the past, a substantial adverse effect was likely to recur . .
CitedSpence v Intype Libra Ltd EAT 27-Apr-2007
EAT The appellant who was disabled was dismissed after a long absence from work. He made various claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, all of which were rejected. He contended that the failure to . .
At EATMcDougall v Richmond Adult Community College EAT 13-Jul-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Disability
Compulsory admission of a patient under the Mental Health Act is not automatically a disability under the DDA 1995. In the circumstances of this case the severity . .

Cited by:
CitedHarron v Dorset Police EAT 12-Jan-2016
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant had a belief (which the Employment Tribunal thought genuine) that public service was improperly wasteful of money. He . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.263769