SG Baker Ltd v Haggart (Disability Discrimination : Disability related discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0007_11_0911 (09 November 2011)

SG Baker Ltd v Haggart (Disability Discrimination : Disability related discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0007_11_0911 (09 November 2011)

On the evidence, the claimant had not established that his impairment was likely to last at least 12 months as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Employment Judge misapplied the burden of proof, relied on irrelevant post-dismissal evidence, and drew unwarranted inferences from the medical report. The only conclusion open was that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0007_11_0911
Parties
Advocate for Appellant: MS ALICE STOBART; Instructing Solicitors for Appellant: Blackadders Solicitors; Solicitor for Respondent: MR NICHOLAS WHELAN; Solicitors for Respondent: Whelan & Co Solicitors
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Employer's Appeal From Employment Tribunal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision overturned.
Legal Topics
Disability Related Discrimination, Definition of Disability Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Disability Related Discrimination Definition of Disability Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Burden of Proof in Discrimination Cases

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MS ALICE STOBART

Advocate for Appellant

Blackadders Solicitors

Instructing Solicitors for Appellant

MR NICHOLAS WHELAN

Solicitor for Respondent

Whelan & Co Solicitors

Solicitors for Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employer's Appeal From Employment Tribunal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a disabled person under section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as at the date of dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge applied the correct legal test and burden of proof
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge erred in relying on evidence post-dating the relevant time

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence, the claimant had not established that his impairment was likely to last at least 12 months as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Employment Judge misapplied the burden of proof, relied on irrelevant post-dismissal evidence, and drew unwarranted inferences from the medical report. The only conclusion open was that the claimant was not disabled at the relevant time.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal decision overturned.

Orders

  • Appeal upheld.
  • Finding that the claimant was not a disabled person as at 24 March 2010 within the meaning of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.