Flattley v Cleveland Police Authority (Practice and Procedure : Case Management) [2013] UKEAT 0986_12_2409 (24 September 2013)

Flattley v Cleveland Police Authority (Practice and Procedure : Case Management) [2013] UKEAT 0986_12_2409 (24 September 2013)

The Tribunal correctly found the Claimant was not disabled as her mental impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The Tribunal correctly applied the comparator test for victimisation and found no less favourable treatment. The award for victimisation was set aside. The refusal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0986_12_2409
Parties
Claimant: Miss Rachel Flattley; Respondent: Cleveland Police Authority
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal and Rule 3(10) Reconsideration
Outcome
Claimant's appeal dismissed; Respondent's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Case Management
Employment Law Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Case Management

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Rachel Flattley

Claimant

Cleveland Police Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal and Rule 3(10) Reconsideration

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in refusing an adjournment for additional medical evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant was disabled under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was victimised for protected acts

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal correctly found the Claimant was not disabled as her mental impairment did not have a substantial adverse effect on day-to-day activities. The Tribunal correctly applied the comparator test for victimisation and found no less favourable treatment. The award for victimisation was set aside. The refusal to adjourn for additional medical evidence was a proper exercise of case management discretion.

Court Disposition

Claimant's appeal dismissed; Respondent's appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment on remedy set aside to the extent of victimisation awards.
  • Finding of unfair dismissal and compensation not challenged.