Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd  IRLR 840 EAT
Reports relating to this case:
Disability discrimination: "Progressive conditions" provisions do not cover impairment as a result of treatment
- 10 January 2003
In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd the EAT holds that an employee who suffered minor urinary incontinence as a result of surgery for prostate cancer was not thereby brought within the scope of the "progressive conditions" provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
- 1 December 2002
In Kirton v Tetrosyl Ltd (23 August 2002), the EAT rules that, in order for an impairment to be said to have resulted from a "progressive condition", such as cancer, within the meaning of the statutory definition of disability, it must be as a direct result of the progressive condition itself and not as a result of the surgery by which the cancer was treated.