James Linton v The Athelstan Trust

James Linton v The Athelstan Trust

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly engage with the medical evidence regarding the likelihood of recurrence of the claimant's impairment, by not making necessary findings on whether the claimant's condition was substantial and long-term or likely to recur, and by failing to provide adequate reasons for making a deposit order. The Tribunal's approach did not demonstrate a proper basis for doubting the claimant's ability to establish the facts essential to his claim.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: James Linton; Respondent: The Athelstan Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Automatic Unfair Dismissal, Deposit Order, Section 6 Equality Act 2010, Section 103 a Employment Rights Act 1996
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Disability Discrimination Automatic Unfair Dismissal Deposit Order Section 6 Equality Act 2010 Section 103 a Employment Rights Act 1996

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Linton

Appellant/claimant

The Athelstan Trust

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 at the material time
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to medical evidence and the assessment of disability
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal provided adequate reasons for making a deposit order under rule 39

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to properly engage with the medical evidence regarding the likelihood of recurrence of the claimant's impairment, by not making necessary findings on whether the claimant's condition was substantial and long-term or likely to recur, and by failing to provide adequate reasons for making a deposit order. The Tribunal's approach did not demonstrate a proper basis for doubting the claimant's ability to establish the facts essential to his claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The claimant's appeals are allowed.
  • The decisions of the Employment Tribunal on disability and the deposit order are set aside.