United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR R B SIDDLE (of Counsel) Messrs McKay Beer Solicitors 122a Gloucester Avenue Primrose Hill London NW1 8HX


 


JUDGE REID QC: This is an ex parte preliminary hearing in an appeal by the applicant below, Mrs Condappa, against a unanimous decision given on 17th February but sent to the parties on 24th February 2000, by which the Employment Tribunal sitting at London (North) determined that:

"(i) the Applicant was not a person disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995;

(ii) the Applicant was not constructively unfair dismissal.

(iii) the Respondents have not breached the Applicant's contract of employment."

1. The conclusion that we have reached is that this a matter which should go to a full hearing.
2. We have considered whether it would be possible to cut out some of the grounds of appeal, because some members of this tribunal at least viewed some of the grounds with a good deal less favour than other grounds. But having looked at it, we think it would probably cause more trouble than it is worth to try and restrict the full hearing of the appeal to certain of the grounds.
3. The major issue is this: that when one reads the decision of the tribunal it appears to be arguable that the tribunal looked only at the question of whether the appellant was disabled within the meaning of the Act at the date of the hearing before the tribunal. It did not look at the position at earlier dates, in particular it did not look at the question of whether she had been disabled between the time when she last worked, which was on 21st May 1998 when she sustained a back injury while dealing with a mother on the ward where she was then employed as a Ward Sister and the time when she left her employment on 14th January 1999.
4. She had earlier been admitted to hospital on 11th February 1998 and had been off work till 27th April 1998 but the medical experts who gave evidence before the tribunal took the view that she had not been a disabled person prior to May 1998 but that she had not been capable of working in a ward environment in June and August 1999, though she had improved between the time of their respective examinations in June and August 1999 and the date of the hearing.
5. As I have said, it appears that the tribunal only examined the question of whether or not she was disabled as at the date of the hearing and did not look to the question of whether she was disabled person at any earlier stage. That seems to us to be a matter which is arguably an error in law and is something which should be properly investigated on a full hearing.
6. We will therefore give leave for this matter to go for a full hearing. As I have already indicated, we will not restrict the scope of the argument because it seems to us, that the other matters need to be and the effect of the other matters asserted need to be looked at in the light of whatever decision the full appeal reaches on the first point, although, as I have already also indicated, that is not to be taken as being any indication of enthusiasm for any of those points on the part of the tribunal.
7. We further direct that the Chairman's Notes of Evidence of medical evidence, i.e., limited to Drs Murphy and Podmore, be available to the full hearing of the appeal. It may be that whoever conducts that hearing will take the view that it is not necessary to look those notes, but at least it will ensure that we do not have a further hiatus if it is thought they are necessary. The case to be listed for a full day, Category B.