Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary

Hart v Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary

The requirements for probationary police officers, including training and experience in confrontational situations, constitute an irreducible minimum. The chief constable was entitled as a matter of law to refuse to lower these standards and was justified in not making adjustments that would waive statutory...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Lorraine Hart; Respondent: Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Reasonable Adjustments, Probationary Employment, Justification of Dismissal, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Probationary Employment Justification of Dismissal Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lorraine Hart

Appellant

Chief Constable of Derbyshire Constabulary

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was under a duty to make reasonable adjustments to enable the appellant to complete probation as a police constable despite her disability
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to waive the strict requirements of the probationary development programme (PDP) constituted unlawful disability discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal and EAT erred in law by not considering section 18B(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements for probationary police officers, including training and experience in confrontational situations, constitute an irreducible minimum. The chief constable was entitled as a matter of law to refuse to lower these standards and was justified in not making adjustments that would waive statutory requirements. The Tribunal and EAT did not err in law, and section 18B(1) was not engaged in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused