[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Mills v. Hillingdon [2001] UKEAT 954_00_3001 (30 January 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/954_00_3001.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 954_00_3001, [2001] UKEAT 954__3001

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R PEZZANI (Of Counsel) Instructed by Law for all PO Box 230 Brentford TW8 9FL


 


JUDGE PUGSLEY

1. This is a case in which the Appellant appeals from the finding of an employment tribunal at London North dismissing her application that she was discriminated against on the grounds of disability. Although issues were raised about the payment of sick pay the central thrust of the Applicant's case was that she was led to believe that a permanent post would be available which would suit her health, thus raising her hopes that such a post had not been definitely decided upon. It is contended that as the employers knew about her depression they should not have made any such suggestions until such a post was definitely available and they should have made adjustments to the manner in which they dealt with her.
2. This is a case where there are we consider certain issues are arguable. We think that ground 6(1) is arguable, namely that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding that the Applicant's disability was not continuing at relevant times, in particular its construction of section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 ('The Act'), and on its construction of schedule 1 paragraph 2 of the Act and Annex 1 paragraph 9 of the Code of Practice. We think it is arguable that the Tribunal's discretion in disallowing the Appellant to cross examine the Respondent's witnesses to the effect that the Appellant's depression operated at relevant times was wrongly exercised. We note the Chairman has commented on that. We direct that she be given the opportunity if she so wishes to comment on it further but she may not wish to in the light of her own previous lesson.
3. We think the 6.2 allegation of perversity is not made out. There is a stringent test for perversity and we do not consider that the Appellants have established there is an arguable issue on that matter. Ground 6.3 is that the tribunal erred in law in deciding that a "breakdown in arrangement" does not constitute "arrangements" as envisaged in section 6 of the Act. We have some reservations but we consider as we are told there is a dearth of authority it is a matter that might just be argued.
4. As to Ground 6.4 that the Tribunal failed to give any reasons for its finding that the previous adjustment the Respondent had made in respect of the Appellant were reasonable adjustments, we again have reservations. Endlessly asking reasons for reasons is to go down a very expensive and unrewarding forensic cul-de-sac but we have decided to allow that to be argued having given leave in 6.3. Ground 6.5 to be withdrawn.
5. That is a Category C case. Half a day Time Estimate. Usual orders to skeleton arguments apply and the Chairman be invited to indicate whether she wishes to comment further on the suggestion concerning stopping cross examination.