Mills v London Borough Of Hillngdon [2002] EWCA Civ 255 (15 February 2002)

Mills v London Borough Of Hillngdon [2002] EWCA Civ 255 (15 February 2002)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to permit cross-examination on the applicant's actual condition during periods of remission, as the statutory definition of disability treats the effect as continuing if it is likely to recur. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion in evidentiary rulings was correct and there was no misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 255
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Lynne Mills; Respondent/respondent: London Borough of Hillingdon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Reasonable Adjustments, Evidentiary Rulings, Remission and Recurrence of Disability Effects
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Reasonable Adjustments Evidentiary Rulings Remission and Recurrence of Disability Effects

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynne Mills

Appellant/applicant

London Borough of Hillingdon

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by refusing cross-examination on the applicant's actual condition during periods of remission, given the statutory definition of disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and its application to recurring impairments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in refusing to permit cross-examination on the applicant's actual condition during periods of remission, as the statutory definition of disability treats the effect as continuing if it is likely to recur. The Tribunal's exercise of discretion in evidentiary rulings was correct and there was no misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • application refused