LQP v City of York Council & Anor (Practice and Procedure, Disability Discrimination) [2022] EAT 196 (28 September 2022)

LQP v City of York Council & Anor (Practice and Procedure, Disability Discrimination) [2022] EAT 196 (28 September 2022)

The Employment Judge failed to conduct the required balancing exercise for the amendment application and did not properly consider the new medical evidence or the engagement of Article 2 ECHR in the anonymity application; both refusals were legally erroneous and must be set aside.

Citation
[2022] EAT 196
Parties
Appellant: LQP; First Respondent: City of York Council; Second Respondent: City of York Training Limited (T/A Work With York)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Case Management Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed on both grounds.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Perceived Disability, Direct Discrimination, Anonymity Orders, Case Management, Article 2 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Article 10 ECHR
Employment Law Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Disability Discrimination Perceived Disability Direct Discrimination Anonymity Orders Case Management +3 more

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LQP

Appellant

City of York Council

First Respondent

City of York Training Limited (T/A Work With York)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal Against Case Management Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing permission to amend the claim to include direct discrimination based on perceived disability
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing to grant an anonymity order

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge failed to conduct the required balancing exercise for the amendment application and did not properly consider the new medical evidence or the engagement of Article 2 ECHR in the anonymity application; both refusals were legally erroneous and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed on both grounds.

Orders

  • Amendment to include perceived disability discrimination claim granted.
  • Application for anonymity order remitted to Tribunal for reconsideration.