Jones v. Computer People Midlands & Anor [2000] UKEAT 928_00_1512 (15 December 2000)

Jones v. Computer People Midlands & Anor [2000] UKEAT 928_00_1512 (15 December 2000)

There is no free-standing right of complaint for failure to comply with the Code of Practice under the DDA; failure to provide job descriptions did not amount to unlawful discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments; the tribunal's findings were not perverse and were within its discretion.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 928_00_1512
Parties
Appellant: Mr Jones; First Respondent: Computer People; Second Respondent: Astra Zeneca
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Preliminary Hearing – Ex Parte
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unlawful Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Code of Practice, Perversity in Tribunal Findings
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Unlawful Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments Code of Practice Perversity in Tribunal Findings

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jones

Appellant

Computer People

First Respondent

Astra Zeneca

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Preliminary Hearing – Ex Parte

  1. 1 Whether failure to have or communicate anti-discrimination policies constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether failure to provide job descriptions or person specifications amounts to unlawful discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal's findings were perverse

Ratio Decidendi

There is no free-standing right of complaint for failure to comply with the Code of Practice under the DDA; failure to provide job descriptions did not amount to unlawful discrimination or failure to make reasonable adjustments; the tribunal's findings were not perverse and were within its discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed