Nissa v Waverly Education Foundation Ltd & Anor [2018] UKEAT 0135_18_1911 (19 November 2018)

Nissa v Waverly Education Foundation Ltd & Anor [2018] UKEAT 0135_18_1911 (19 November 2018)

The Employment Tribunal erred by focusing on diagnosis rather than impairment, applying an incorrect test for 'likely' regarding long-term effects, and failing to consider relevant evidence (including medical reports and the effects absent medication) in assessing whether the Claimant's impairments had a substantial and long-term adverse effect. The ET's decision was therefore unsafe and could not stand.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0135_18_1911
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mrs Nissa; Respondents: First Respondent (School) and Second Respondent (Principal)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (disability Discrimination) / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Preliminary Determination on Disability Status
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Definition of Disability, Substantial Adverse Effect, Long Term Effect, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Substantial Adverse Effect Long Term Effect Equality Act 2010

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Nissa

Appellant/claimant

First Respondent (School) and Second Respondent (Principal)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (disability Discrimination) / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal's Preliminary Determination on Disability Status

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's impairments were 'long-term' within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's impairments had a 'substantial adverse effect' on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by focusing on diagnosis rather than impairment, applying an incorrect test for 'likely' regarding long-term effects, and failing to consider relevant evidence (including medical reports and the effects absent medication) in assessing whether the Claimant's impairments had a substantial and long-term adverse effect. The ET's decision was therefore unsafe and could not stand.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision set aside.

Orders

  • Case remitted to a different Employment Tribunal for re-hearing of the preliminary issue of disability status under the Equality Act 2010.