Philip McQueen v General Optical Council

Philip McQueen v General Optical Council

The tribunal did not err in law or principle in finding that the claimant's conduct on the occasions in question did not arise in consequence of his disabilities; the effects of the disabilities played no part in the conduct that led to the unfavourable treatment. Once that finding was made, the further question of whether the unfavourable treatment was 'because of' something arising from disability did not arise. The tribunal's reasoning, though unorthodox and poorly structured, was sufficient and disclosed no error of law.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Philip McQueen; Respondent: General Optical Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Section 15 Equality Act 2010, Causation in Discrimination Claims, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Section 15 Equality Act 2010 Causation in Discrimination Claims Employment Tribunal 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip McQueen

Appellant/claimant

General Optical Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Employment Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment tribunal erred in law in dismissing the claim for unfavourable treatment because of something arising in consequence of disability under section 15 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal applied the correct test of causation under section 15 EqA
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal gave adequate reasons for its findings on causation

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in law or principle in finding that the claimant's conduct on the occasions in question did not arise in consequence of his disabilities; the effects of the disabilities played no part in the conduct that led to the unfavourable treatment. Once that finding was made, the further question of whether the unfavourable treatment was 'because of' something arising from disability did not arise. The tribunal's reasoning, though unorthodox and poorly structured, was sufficient and disclosed no error of law.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed