McKechnie Plastic Components v Grant [2009] UKEAT 0284_08_2001 (20 January 2009)

McKechnie Plastic Components v Grant [2009] UKEAT 0284_08_2001 (20 January 2009)

The tribunal did not err in law by inferring the existence of a mental impairment from compelling lay evidence despite the expert report, but failed to properly address whether the impairment was 'long term' under the statutory test, requiring reconsideration.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 0284_08_2001
Parties
Appellant Advocate: Edward Brown; Appellant Instructing Solicitors: Speechly Bircham LLP Solicitors; Respondent Representative: Michael Grant
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Leeds Employment Tribunal Preliminary Issue Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Disability Status Determination, Weight of Expert Evidence, Statutory Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Disability Status Determination Weight of Expert Evidence Statutory Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act

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

Edward Brown

Appellant Advocate

Speechly Bircham LLP Solicitors

Appellant Instructing Solicitors

Michael Grant

Respondent Representative

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Leeds Employment Tribunal Preliminary Issue Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Can a tribunal find disability discrimination contrary to an agreed expert report?
  2. 2 Did the tribunal err in law by inferring the existence and duration of mental impairment?
  3. 3 Did the tribunal apply the correct statutory test for 'long term' impairment under the Disability Discrimination Act?

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not err in law by inferring the existence of a mental impairment from compelling lay evidence despite the expert report, but failed to properly address whether the impairment was 'long term' under the statutory test, requiring reconsideration.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • case remitted to the same tribunal to reconsider whether the claimant's mental impairment was 'long term' within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act