Rehman v DHL Services Ltd (Disability Discrimination) [2022] EAT 90 (15 June 2022)

Rehman v DHL Services Ltd (Disability Discrimination) [2022] EAT 90 (15 June 2022)

The employment judge's erroneous interpretation of 'unconscious magnification of symptoms' in Dr Misra's report materially influenced the credibility assessment and the determination that the claimant was not disabled with respect to all three impairments. The reconsideration decision did not adequately cure this fundamental error. The refusal to permit amendment of the claim was not affected by this error and was properly reasoned.

Citation
[2022] EAT 90
Parties
Claimant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Disability Status Determination, Credibility Assessment, Application to Amend Claim, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Disability Discrimination Disability Status Determination Credibility Assessment Application to Amend Claim Equality Act 2010

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant

Claimant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Preliminary Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was a disabled person under Equality Act 2010 with respect to three impairments
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in interpreting medical evidence regarding 'unconscious magnification of symptoms'
  3. 3 Whether refusal to permit amendment of claim was legally sound

Ratio Decidendi

The employment judge's erroneous interpretation of 'unconscious magnification of symptoms' in Dr Misra's report materially influenced the credibility assessment and the determination that the claimant was not disabled with respect to all three impairments. The reconsideration decision did not adequately cure this fundamental error. The refusal to permit amendment of the claim was not affected by this error and was properly reasoned.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • The appeal against the judge's decision that the claimant was not a disabled person is allowed and remitted for rehearing by a different judge.
  • The appeal against the refusal to permit amendment of the claim is dismissed.