Cheasty v. H. M. Prison Service [2003] UKEAT 1142_02_1909 (19 September 2003)

Cheasty v. H. M. Prison Service [2003] UKEAT 1142_02_1909 (19 September 2003)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Cheasty was not disabled within the meaning of the Act as his impairment was not long-term and did not have a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities. The inability to prepare lifer reports was not a day-to-day activity. The Tribunal gave adequate reasons for not fully accepting the medical expert's views. The award of costs against the Respondent was not justified as the conduct was not unreasonable.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 1142_02_1909
Parties
Appellant: Mr Cheasty; Respondent: Prison Service
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Day to Day Activities, Costs Orders, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Day to Day Activities Costs Orders Statutory Interpretation

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

Parties

Mr Cheasty

Appellant

Prison Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Cheasty was disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the material time
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its assessment of 'long-term' and 'substantial' adverse effect
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach to medical evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that Mr Cheasty was not disabled within the meaning of the Act as his impairment was not long-term and did not have a substantial adverse effect on his day-to-day activities. The inability to prepare lifer reports was not a day-to-day activity. The Tribunal gave adequate reasons for not fully accepting the medical expert's views. The award of costs against the Respondent was not justified as the conduct was not unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the finding that Mr Cheasty was not disabled is upheld.
  • The cross-appeal is allowed; the order for costs against the Respondent is set aside.