BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Drury v. Bedford Hospital NHS Trust [2001] UKEAT 1402_00_0706 (7 June 2001)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1402_00_0706.html
Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 1402_00_0706, [2001] UKEAT 1402__706

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]


BAILII case number: [2001] UKEAT 1402_00_0706
Appeal No. EAT/1402/00

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
             At the Tribunal
             On 7 June 2001

Before

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NELSON

MR D CHADWICK

MR H SINGH



MRS P A DRURY APPELLANT

BEDFORD HOSPITAL NHS TRUST RESPONDENT


Transcript of Proceedings

JUDGMENT

PRELIMINARY HEARING

© Copyright 2001


    APPEARANCES

     

    For the Appellant MS JILL BROWN
    (Of Counsel)
    Instructed by
    Disability Rights Commission
    2nd Floor, Arndale House
    The Arndale Centre
    Manchester
    M4 3AQ
       


     

    MR JUSTICE NELSON

  1. This is a Preliminary Hearing of an Appeal by Pauline Ann Drury against the decision of the Bedford Employment Tribunal of 30 September 2000 in which they held unanimously that she was not unfairly dismissed, that she has not been the subject of discrimination and other findings. The appeal in this case relates solely to the finding of the Tribunal that there was no discrimination.
  2. We, having heard the arguments and read the skeletons are satisfied that there is an arguable point here and that the matter should go to a full hearing. The issues which should be so considered are in our view whether the failure to create an interim supernumary post amounts to a breach of section 6 of Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and whether the wording of the advert expressed as it was in terms which gave the cover applicant one year fixed term rather than anything more flexible or shorter was also a breach of section 6. The question that arises in relation to those matters is whether as has been expressed in argument to us today, the Respondents could not only have done a great deal more to assist the Applicant, who had a very substantial period of employment at the Health Service at a very difficult period in her life, but should have done more, and whether what they should have done was proper consideration of the steps to be taken under section 6. Those points are in our view arguable. We therefore direct that the matter goes to a full hearing. Category B. ½ day.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/1402_00_0706.html