Adjusting to disability

This report relates to 3 case(s)

• expand

  McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd [2002] IRLR 711 CA (2 other reports)

  • Disability discrimination: Meaning of "physical or mental impairment"

    Date:

    10 January 2003

    In McNichol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd the Court of Appeal holds that an employment tribunal was entitled to find that the employee had not established that he suffered either a physical or mental impairment within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  • On appeal

    Date:

    24 September 2002

    Continuing our series on the implications of recent significant cases, Charlotte Hamer, professional support lawyer in the employment pensions and benefits group at international law firm Stephenson Harwood, looks at the issues.

• expand

  Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey [2002] IRLR 235 EAT (4 other reports)

  • When is a progressive condition a disability?

    Date:

    1 September 2002

    A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progessive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  • When is a progressive condition a disability?

    Date:

    25 June 2002

    A recent EAT case has clarified the meaning of progressive conditions under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

  • Disability discrimination: Progressive condition a disability only if substantial adverse effects likely in the future

    Date:

    15 April 2002

    In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey, the EAT upholds an employment tribunal's decision that a claimant diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act.

  • Progressive condition claim fails

    Date:

    1 April 2002

    In Mowat-Brown v University of Surrey (10 December 2001), the EAT holds that an applicant who had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis was not a disabled person within the meaning of the statutory definition because he had not established that the condition was likely to have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

• expand

  Vicary v British Telecommunications plc [1999] IRLR 680 EAT (2 other reports)

  • Disability discrimination: Tribunal wrongly approached question of whether or not complainant was disabled

    Date:

    1 November 1999

    In Vicary v British Telecommunications plc, the EAT holds that an employment tribunal's conclusion that a woman did not have a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 was perverse.

  • Limited role for medical expert at tribunal

    Date:

    1 September 1999

    In Vicary v British Telecommunications plc the EAT has emphasised that it is for the employment tribunal rather than for an expert medical witness to determine what is a "normal day-to-day activity" and what is a "substantial" effect.