O'Neill v Calcast Ltd [2007] NIIT 16_04 (3 January 2007)

O'Neill v Calcast Ltd [2007] NIIT 16_04 (3 January 2007)

The claimant failed to establish that his physical impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Medical evidence and credible witness testimony did not support the claimant's assertions. Therefore, he is not a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Citation
[2007] NIIT 16_04
Parties
Claimant: Charlie O’Neill; Respondent: Calcast Ltd; Respondent: Montupet (UK) Ltd
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
03 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Industrial Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Substantial Adverse Effect, Assessment of Evidence, Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Substantial Adverse Effect Assessment of Evidence Disability Discrimination Act 1995

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charlie O’Neill

Claimant

Calcast Ltd

Respondent

Montupet (UK) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a disabled person under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to establish that his physical impairment had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Medical evidence and credible witness testimony did not support the claimant's assertions. Therefore, he is not a disabled person for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed