||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 279 (Oct)
||Employment Appeal Tribunal
Judge Reid QC
||Michael Humphreys (instructed by Knowles) for the employer.
||Neil Downey (instructed by Pannone & Partners) for the employee.
||24 May 2006
Employment - Disability - Discrimination - Mental illness - Employee suffering from recurrent depressive disorder - Tribunal chairman deciding employee to be treated as disabled on basis that substantial adverse effect likely to recur - Whether tribunal correctly approaching question of whether impairment likely to recur - , Sch 1, para 2(1)(2).
In considering the application of para2(2) of Sch1 to the the question for the tribunal was whether the substantial adverse effect was likely to recur, not whether the illness was likely to recur. In the case of a clinically well recognised mental illness, it was not a requirement that the mental illness itself was likely to recur. The Act contemplated that an illness might run its course to a conclusion but leave behind an impairment. It was possible to envisage circumstances where an impairment resulting from an illness might again have a substantial adverse effect. However, the effect should be a recurrence of the earlier effect.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary