McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Mummery,Mr Justice Wall |
| Judgment Date | 26 July 2002 |
| Neutral Citation | [2002] EWCA Civ 1074 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A1/2001/2127 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 26 July 2002 |
COURT OF APPEAL
Before Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mummery and Mr Justice Wall
Employment - Disability Rights Commission - not entitled to make representations to court where not a party - unless exceptional circumstances - Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 - Disability Discrimination Act 1995
The statutory duties given to the Disability Rights Commission, established by the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999, did not entitle the commission to make representations to a tribunal or court to which it was not a party.
The Court of Appeal (Sir Andrew Morritt, Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mummery and Mr Justice Wall) so stated in a reserved judgment on July 26, 2002 dismissing the appeal of Daniel McNicol, the employee, from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal (Mr Commissioner Howell, QC, Mr P. A. L. Parker and Mr G. H. Wright) on July 27, 2001 which dismissed his appeal from a Nottingham employment tribunal on September 30, 2000.
The tribunal, hearing a preliminary issue, held that the employee was not suffering from a disability so that he was not entitled to pursue his claim of disability discrimination against his employer, Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd.
LORD JUSTICE MUMMERY said that although recognising that the commission had important statutory duties to work towards the elimination of disability...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr. X HS 1212 2014
...(see College of Ripon and York St. John v. Hobbs [2002] IRLR 185, 188, paragraph 32; McNicol v. Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd [2002] ICR 1498 at paragraphs 17, 18), I consider that ‘condition’ is not as a matter of ordinary usage limited in the way suggested by the Respondent. To my m......
-
Bailey v Warren
...do not withstand close scrutiny. I gratefully adopt the observations of Mummery LJ in McNichol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd. 2002 IRLR 711 that the approach a court should adopt when faced with medical evidence as to mental impairment is as follows: "The essential question in each ......
-
Mr D Herry v Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council: 1303959/2015
...adverse effect long term? Morgan -v- Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190 (EAT) McNicol -v- Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Limited [2002] IRLR 711 (CA) McKechnie Plastic Components –v- Grant UKEAT/0284/08 (EAT) J –v- DLA Piper UK LLP [2010] IRLR 936 (EAT) A claimant is not required to ......
-
Mr D Bailey v Design & Technical Services (UK) Ltd: 2405904/2021
...can thus be cause or effect and there is no need to identify the cause of the impairment. (College of Ripon and York St John v Hobbs [2002] EWCA Civ 1074). 66. The significance of the absence of an apparent cause (e.g. a clinically diagnosed medical illness) for an impairment is evidential,......
-
Unconscious bias and the medical model: How the social model may hold the key to transformative thinking about disability discrimination
...may be generic terms to satisfy the requirement of impairment (Butler,2014).20. Refer to Mc Nicol v. Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd [2002] IRLR 711 and Morgan v.Staffordshire University [2002] IRLR 190. In Morgan v. Staffordshire University [2002]IRLR 190 at 194, para. 20, the EAT stat......
-
Difficult distinctions in anti-discrimination law: Disfigurement, appearance and disability
...Difference’, 2018 (n 45).58. Rugamer v. Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited [2001] IRLR 644 para. 34.59. McNicol v. Balfour Beatty [2002] IRLR 711, para. 17.60. Equalityand Human Rights Commission, ‘Equality Act 2010 Code of Practice, Employment’,(The Stationery office Limited, 2011), Appen......