Alexander v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1187 (15 September 2005)

Alexander v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1187 (15 September 2005)

The employment tribunal did not err in law or act perversely in finding that the applicant was not disabled within the statutory meaning prior to 13 February 2002, as there was insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities before that date. The omission to mention the fitting of a hearing aid was not a legal error, and the tribunal considered cumulative effects. No unfairness or procedural impropriety was established.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1187
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Elza Alexander; Respondent/respondent: Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Definition of Disability, Deduced Effects, Evidence Requirements, Appeal Procedure
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Constructive Dismissal Definition of Disability Deduced Effects Evidence Requirements Appeal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elza Alexander

Appellant/applicant

Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment tribunal erred in finding the applicant was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 prior to 13 February 2002
  2. 2 Whether the employment tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence, including cumulative effects and the fitting of a hearing aid
  3. 3 Whether the employment tribunal's findings were perverse or legally erroneous

Ratio Decidendi

The employment tribunal did not err in law or act perversely in finding that the applicant was not disabled within the statutory meaning prior to 13 February 2002, as there was insufficient evidence of substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities before that date. The omission to mention the fitting of a hearing aid was not a legal error, and the tribunal considered cumulative effects. No unfairness or procedural impropriety was established.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application refused
  • copy of transcript of judgment to applicant at public expense