Wood v Durham County Council [2018] UKEAT 0099_18_0309 (03 September 2018 )

Wood v Durham County Council [2018] UKEAT 0099_18_0309 (03 September 2018 )

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the claimant's conduct amounted to a tendency to steal, which is an excluded condition under Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010. As the discriminatory treatment (dismissal) arose from this excluded condition, the claimant was not protected under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal did not err in law or fact, nor was its decision perverse, and the preliminary hearing was properly conducted by a judge sitting alone.

Citation
[2018] UKEAT 0099_18_0309
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Anthony Wood; Respondent: Durham County Council
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision upheld.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Exclusions Under Equality Act, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Dishonesty in Employment, Preliminary Hearings
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Exclusions Under Equality Act Employment Tribunal Procedure Dishonesty in Employment Preliminary Hearings

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

Parties

Anthony Wood

Appellant/claimant

Durham County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's conduct amounted to a 'tendency to steal' excluded from protection under Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010, Regulation 4(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law or fact in its findings regarding dishonesty and intent
  3. 3 Whether the preliminary hearing should have been conducted by a judge sitting alone

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that the claimant's conduct amounted to a tendency to steal, which is an excluded condition under Regulation 4(1)(b) of the Equality Act 2010 (Disability) Regulations 2010. As the discriminatory treatment (dismissal) arose from this excluded condition, the claimant was not protected under the Equality Act 2010. The Tribunal did not err in law or fact, nor was its decision perverse, and the preliminary hearing was properly conducted by a judge sitting alone.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal decision upheld.

Orders

  • Unfair dismissal claim to be listed for determination before the Tribunal.