Coutts & Co v. Davis [2000] EAT 306_99_0910 (9 October 2000)

Coutts & Co v. Davis [2000] EAT 306_99_0910 (9 October 2000)

The Tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal was justified based on the Bank's failure to communicate options and requirements for medical evidence, and the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal's conclusion that Mrs Davis was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not perverse and based on credible medical evidence. Re-engagement was impracticable due to breakdown in trust and health risks. Compensation was properly quantified based on the hypothetical return to work.

Citation
[2000] EAT 306_99_0910
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Susan Davis; Respondent/appellant: Coutts & Co
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
All appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Remedies, Re Engagement
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Disability Discrimination Remedies Re Engagement

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

Parties

Susan Davis

Applicant/appellant

Coutts & Co

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Davis was unfairly dismissed
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Davis was discriminated against by reason of disability
  3. 3 Whether re-engagement was practicable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's finding of unfair dismissal was justified based on the Bank's failure to communicate options and requirements for medical evidence, and the dismissal fell outside the range of reasonable responses. The Tribunal's conclusion that Mrs Davis was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was not perverse and based on credible medical evidence. Re-engagement was impracticable due to breakdown in trust and health risks. Compensation was properly quantified based on the hypothetical return to work.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Bank to pay Mrs Davis £15,920 compensation for unfair dismissal.
  • No order for re-engagement.