Whyte v First Capital East Ltd [2005] UKEAT 0686_04_2203 (22 March 2005)

Whyte v First Capital East Ltd [2005] UKEAT 0686_04_2203 (22 March 2005)

The Tribunal did not err in finding the Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as there was no sufficient evidence of a physical or mental impairment having a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, nor of severe disfigurement. The Tribunal was not required to adjourn or act inquisitorially, and the application to admit new medical evidence on appeal was properly refused or, by majority, only partially admitted. The Tribunal's findings were matters of fact and not perverse.

Citation
[2005] UKEAT 0686_04_2203
Parties
Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
22 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Decision on Disability Status
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Status Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal, Practice and Procedure in Employment Tribunals, Severe Disfigurement, Substantial Adverse Effect on Day to Day Activities
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Disability Status Under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal Practice and Procedure in Employment Tribunals Severe Disfigurement Substantial Adverse Effect on Day to Day Activities

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Disability Discrimination / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Decision on Disability Status

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant was disabled within the meaning of section 1 and schedule 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in excluding evidence of mental impairment
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of severe disfigurement and substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in finding the Claimant was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as there was no sufficient evidence of a physical or mental impairment having a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities, nor of severe disfigurement. The Tribunal was not required to adjourn or act inquisitorially, and the application to admit new medical evidence on appeal was properly refused or, by majority, only partially admitted. The Tribunal's findings were matters of fact and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Supplementary bundle of documents admitted
  • Directions given for onward progress of unfair dismissal case