Forbes v. Department of Social Security [2001] UKEAT 578_01_1710 (17 October 2001)

Forbes v. Department of Social Security [2001] UKEAT 578_01_1710 (17 October 2001)

The tribunal found that the respondent had proved there were no reasonable steps it could take to enable the appellant to perform the role without a driving licence, and that the refusal was justified on health and safety grounds. There was no deliberate withholding of relevant information or breach of natural justice.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 578_01_1710
Parties
Appellant: Felix Forbes; Respondent: Consumer Services Team, Disability Benefits Centre, Bootle
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Justification Defence, Disclosure of Evidence, Natural Justice
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Justification Defence Disclosure of Evidence Natural Justice

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Felix Forbes

Appellant

Consumer Services Team, Disability Benefits Centre, Bootle

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with its duty under Section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to allow the appellant on the training course was justified
  3. 3 Whether there was non-disclosure of relevant documents amounting to a breach of natural justice

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal found that the respondent had proved there were no reasonable steps it could take to enable the appellant to perform the role without a driving licence, and that the refusal was justified on health and safety grounds. There was no deliberate withholding of relevant information or breach of natural justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed