Anwar v. Tower Hamlets College [2010] UKEAT 0091_10_2307 (23 July 2010)

Anwar v. Tower Hamlets College [2010] UKEAT 0091_10_2307 (23 July 2010)

The Employment Judge applied the wrong legal test for 'likely' duration by using 'more probable than not' instead of 'may well happen', and wrongly treated the availability of treatment as determinative rather than as one relevant factor. The appeal succeeds on the frozen shoulder issue and is remitted for reconsideration; the appeal fails on the headache issue as the Judge's reasoning was not perverse or legally erroneous.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0091_10_2307
Parties
Appellant: Ms B Anwar; Respondent: Unknown (Respondent)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Definition of Disability, Long Term Effect, Substantial Adverse Effect, Medical Treatment and Disability, Interpretation of 'likely'
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Long Term Effect Substantial Adverse Effect Medical Treatment and Disability Interpretation of 'likely'

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms B Anwar

Appellant

Unknown (Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a disabled person within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 at the relevant time
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge applied the correct legal test for 'likely' duration of impairment
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge erred in considering the availability of medical treatment as determinative

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge applied the wrong legal test for 'likely' duration by using 'more probable than not' instead of 'may well happen', and wrongly treated the availability of treatment as determinative rather than as one relevant factor. The appeal succeeds on the frozen shoulder issue and is remitted for reconsideration; the appeal fails on the headache issue as the Judge's reasoning was not perverse or legally erroneous.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on the frozen shoulder issue; remitted to a different Employment Judge for reconsideration applying the correct legal test.
  • Appeal dismissed on the headache issue.