Goodwin v Patent Office
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Date | 1999 |
| Year | 1999 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
365 cases
-
Rees v. Darlington Memorial Hospital NHS Trust, (2003) 313 N.R. 135 (HL)
...[1997] S.L.T. 211, refd to. [para. 54]. Clark v. Novacold Ltd., [1999] I.C.R. 951, refd to. [para. 67]. Goodwin v. Patent Office, [1999] I.C.R. 302, refd to. [para. Ward v. James, [1966] 1 Q.B. 273, refd to. [para. 71]. Wright v. British Railways Board, [1983] 2 A.C. 773, refd to. [para. 71......
-
Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm
...It has been common ground at all stages in the case that in this context "substantial" means "more than minor or trivial": see Goodwin v Patent Office [1999] ICR 302, EAT, Morison J, p 310C; cited with apparent approval in Manchester City Council v Romano (Disability Rights Commission inte......
-
Ms A Lacatus v Barclays Execution Services Ltd and others: 3201295/2019 and 3201137/2020
...a person meets the statutory definition of disability. 106 Case Numbers: 3201295/2019 & 3201137/2020 V 463. In Goodwin v Patent Office 1999 ICR 302, EAT the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the starting point in determining whether a claimant had a disability would be to have regard to ......
-
Mr O Alimi v ENI International Resources Ltd: 1404742/2020 and others
...considering the issue of disability should ensure that each step is considered separately and sequentially, Goodwin v The Patent Office [1999] IRLR 4. 185. An impairment will only amount to a disability if it has a substantial adverse effect on the individual’s ability to carry out day-to-d......
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
Unconscious bias and the medical model: How the social model may hold the key to transformative thinking about disability discrimination
...‘pick rate’imposed by the Respondent was a potential barrier that prevented full inclusion inworking life.48The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in this case applied Chaco´nNavas v. Eurest Colectividades SA49and concluded that the Claimant had a disability forthe purposes of the EqA 2010. I......
-
Difficult distinctions in anti-discrimination law: Disfigurement, appearance and disability
...Hand v. The Police Authority for Northern Ireland (n 13).22. Griffiths v. Lancashire County Council [2009] (unreported) (ET).23. [1999] ICR 302, 307.24. Ibid.25. Ibid.26. In Pepper v. Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032, the House of Lords appeared to relax the rules aboutusing explanations from parliam......