Jobling v. Corporate Medical Management Ltd [2001] UKEAT 703_01_1611 (16 November 2001)

Jobling v. Corporate Medical Management Ltd [2001] UKEAT 703_01_1611 (16 November 2001)

The Tribunal's majority decision that Mrs Jobling was not disabled was legally unimpeachable and based on sufficient evidence, specifically preferring the Respondent's expert testimony that there was no continuing or recurring clinically recognised mental illness within the relevant period.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 703_01_1611
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Jobling; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Issue Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Mental Impairment, Constructive Dismissal, Health and Safety Activities
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Mental Impairment Constructive Dismissal Health and Safety Activities

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Jobling

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal Against Preliminary Issue Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Jobling was a disabled person under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether her mental impairment constituted a clinically well-recognised illness
  3. 3 Whether there was a recurrence of mental impairment within the relevant period

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's majority decision that Mrs Jobling was not disabled was legally unimpeachable and based on sufficient evidence, specifically preferring the Respondent's expert testimony that there was no continuing or recurring clinically recognised mental illness within the relevant period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The successive parts of the claim (unfair constructive dismissal and Health and Safety) should not be heard by the same Tribunal panel.