Makuchova v Guoman Hotel Management (UK) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Sales |
| Judgment Date | 14 April 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 633 |
| Date | 14 April 2016 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: A2/2015/0427 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 633
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Sales
Case No: A2/2015/0427
The Applicant appeared in person
The Respondent did not appear and was not represented
a.
This is a renewed oral application for permission to appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Employment Tribunal promulgated on 4 September 2013. The application has been presented by Ms Makuchova in person with commendable focus and brevity. Ms Makuchova has explained very clearly what she sees as the defect in the decisions in the tribunals below.
Ms Makuchova was employed by the employer for a period of about ten years in the restaurant and hotel business. In March 2012 she was diagnosed with an incipient degenerative condition of the spine which caused her significant problems at work. There were discussions with the employer as to whether adjustments could be made to her existing job in such a way as would have enabled her to continue in that post. It was clear that she could not continue without adjustments being made.
The issue which emerged between her and the employer was whether any realistic adjustments could be made to the job which she carried out. A report was obtained from Dr Philippa Beatson-Hird, an occupational physician. In the relevant part Dr Philippa Beatson-Hird said:
i. "It is my opinion that she is likely to struggle with a return to her substantive role due to the requirement for prolonged standing and carrying what are described as heavy items.
ii. She may be able to manage to stand for an hour at a time followed by a short period of rest but she would struggle with standing for an entire shift."
Against that background her employer offered Ms Makuchova a return to work with breaks after each hour. Ms Makuchova was not persuaded that the job was realistically feasible for her to carry out with such a level of adjustment. She pressed the employer for different adjustments in the form of a redeployment to other roles.
The parties remained in dispute over this and in the end Ms Makuchova was dismissed in March 2013. She then commenced proceedings for unfair dismissal on the basis that her employer had breached its...
To continue reading
Request your trial