Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Shaw Munster Ltd v.Trentham [1999] UKEAT 419_99_1207 (12 July 1999)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/1999/419_99_1207.html
Cite as: [1999] UKEAT 419_99_1207
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
| At the Tribunal | |
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAROLD WILSON
MR J A SCOULLER
SHAW MUNSTER LTD APPELLANT
MR K TRENTHAM RESPONDENT
| APPELLANT | |
| RESPONDENT |
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
Revised
| For the Appellants | MR S JONES (of Counsel) Instructed by: Ms C Hagestadt EEF Broadway House Tothill Street London SW1H 9NQ |
JUDGE HAROLD WILSON: This was the preliminary hearing of the appeal brought by the company which was the respondent in the original proceedings and which was represented today by Mr Sean Jones.
On behalf of the appellant company, Mr Jones consented to the preliminary hearing being conducted by the Judge and one member.
The Originating Application in this case alleged discrimination due to disability and constructive dismissal. The applicant had worked for the appellant company for a number of years. When he had begun his employment, he was already suffering from a form of degenerative muscular dystrophy which principally affected his legs and about which the appellant company knew before employing him.
The layout of the appellant company's premises involved movement by the applicant worker during the course of his day's work. In particular he had to negotiate one of two sets of stairs.
As the years went by, the worker's condition deteriorated and he asked the appellant company to put in a second stair rail on the more convenient stairway for his assistance. The appellant company recognised his need but failed to put in a stair rail. The applicant's condition continued to deteriorate and eventually he left his employment and thereafter submitted his application on the grounds already stated.
The Employment Tribunal, in a reserved decision, unanimously held that the applicant was unfairly dismissed and had been unlawfully discriminated against by the appellant company which was ordered to pay compensation to him.
The appellant company has entered a lengthy Notice of Appeal which has been supported today by a comprehensive skeleton argument produced by Mr Jones. We agree with him that the matters set out in those documents raise a number of arguable points of law and accordingly we are of the unanimous opinion that the matter should proceed to a full hearing. In our view, the case is suitable for hearing as a Category B matter and we assess its duration as ½ a day.