Whiley v. Christopher Clarke Workshops Ltd [2003] UKEAT 1403_01_1103 (11 March 2003)

Whiley v. Christopher Clarke Workshops Ltd [2003] UKEAT 1403_01_1103 (11 March 2003)

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the employer's lack of knowledge of the applicant's disability as determinative for justification under section 5(1)(b) DDA and by failing to properly consider whether the employer could reasonably have known of the disability and substantial disadvantage under section 6(6).

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 1403_01_1103
Parties
Appellant: Mr Whiley; Respondent: Christopher Clark Workshops Ltd
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments, Justification Defence

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

Parties

Mr Whiley

Appellant

Christopher Clark Workshops Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal constituted disability discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the employer failed to make reasonable adjustments under section 6 DDA
  3. 3 Whether the employer's lack of knowledge of disability justified dismissal under section 5(1)(b) DDA

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the employer's lack of knowledge of the applicant's disability as determinative for justification under section 5(1)(b) DDA and by failing to properly consider whether the employer could reasonably have known of the disability and substantial disadvantage under section 6(6).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • DDA claim remitted to a fresh Tribunal for rehearing on justification under section 5(1)(b) and possible breach of section 5(2)