Qureshi v Marks And Spencer Plc (Disability Discrimination : Disability) [2013] UKEAT 0456_12_1103 (11 March 2013)

Qureshi v Marks And Spencer Plc (Disability Discrimination : Disability) [2013] UKEAT 0456_12_1103 (11 March 2013)

The Employment Tribunal erred by failing to consider evidence relating to the relevant period and by not addressing the credibility issue. There was some evidence of substantial adverse effect during the relevant period, and the Tribunal's reasons did not adequately address the credibility dispute. The judgment cannot stand and must be remitted for reconsideration by a new Tribunal.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0456_12_1103
Parties
Appellant: Ms Qureshi; Respondent: Marks & Spencer PLC
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal's Pre Hearing Review
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision set aside.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Definition of Disability, Substantial Adverse Effect, Credibility Assessment
Employment Law Equality Law Disability Discrimination Definition of Disability Substantial Adverse Effect Credibility Assessment

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Qureshi

Appellant

Marks & Spencer PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal's Pre Hearing Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was under a disability within the meaning of section 6 Equality Act 2010 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995 during the relevant period
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's mental impairment had a substantial and long-term adverse effect on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal properly considered the evidence and credibility issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred by failing to consider evidence relating to the relevant period and by not addressing the credibility issue. There was some evidence of substantial adverse effect during the relevant period, and the Tribunal's reasons did not adequately address the credibility dispute. The judgment cannot stand and must be remitted for reconsideration by a new Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal's decision set aside.

Orders

  • Issue of disability remitted to a new Employment Tribunal for determination.