Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] UKEAT 1124_99_1910 (19 October 2000)

Abadeh v British Telecommunications Plc [2000] UKEAT 1124_99_1910 (19 October 2000)

The Employment Tribunal misdirected itself in law by relying excessively on Dr Macaulay's opinion regarding substantial impairment, failing to properly consider the effect of ongoing medical treatment, incorrectly determining what constitutes normal day to day activities, and failing to properly consider the Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment; the case must be remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 1124_99_1910
Parties
Appellant: Mr Abadeh; Respondent: British Telecommunications Plc
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Disability Definition, Medical Evidence, Day to Day Activities, Effect of Medical Treatment, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Disability Definition Medical Evidence Day to Day Activities Effect of Medical Treatment Tribunal Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Abadeh

Appellant

British Telecommunications Plc

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Employment Tribunal err in law by relying excessively on Dr Macaulay's medical opinion regarding 'substantial' impairment?
  2. 2 Did the Tribunal fail to properly consider the effect of ongoing medical treatment under Schedule 1, paragraph 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
  3. 3 Did the Tribunal incorrectly determine what constitutes 'normal day to day activities'?

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal misdirected itself in law by relying excessively on Dr Macaulay's opinion regarding substantial impairment, failing to properly consider the effect of ongoing medical treatment, incorrectly determining what constitutes normal day to day activities, and failing to properly consider the Medical Appeal Tribunal's assessment; the case must be remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • Case remitted to a fresh Tribunal for full rehearing.
  • Guidance provided to Tribunal on issues of medical evidence, effect of treatment, and assessment of day to day activities.