[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Vyas v. Camden [2002] UKEAT 1153_01_2703 (27 March 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2002/1153_01_2703.html Cite as: [2002] UKEAT 1153_01_2703, [2002] UKEAT 1153_1_2703

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR A M VYAS In Person


 


MR COMMISSIONER HOWELL QC

1. This is an appeal by Mr Anant Vyas in a case of disability discrimination he brought against the London Borough of Camden by Originating Application dated 7 November 2000. The appeal to us is by Mr Vyas against the decision of the London Central Employment Tribunal sitting on two days in June and July 2001 recorded in Extended Reasons sent to the parties on 7 August 2001, in which they held that Mr Vyas did not count as a person who has a disability for the purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 with the consequence that they did not consider the merits of his complaint of disability discrimination and immediately dismissed it.
2. The principal reason which led the Tribunal to that conclusion was having received documentary medical evidence about Mr Vyas' condition (he suffers from schaemic heart disease and angina, for which he takes a variety of medication), the Tribunal recorded themselves as satisfied that the degree of impairment he suffers did not have a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out day to day activities: and most materially that it would not have a substantial adverse effect without the medication that he has been prescribed for his conditions.
3. We have been satisfied that there is are arguable points in the Notice of Appeal, drafted for Mr Vyas by the solicitors then acting for him, which merit the consideration of the Appeal Tribunal at a full inter partes hearing. There is a question on whether the Tribunal misdirected themselves by taking too narrow a view of the likely effects of withdrawing Mr Vyas' medication, and in particular in apparently taking the view that because some of the preparations are what they referred to as "preventative rather than dealing with his present condition". They were to be left out of account for the purposes of the inquiry under paragraph 6 Schedule 1 to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 as to what would be likely consequences in terms of adverse effects of Mr Vyas' condition if the medication being taken to treat or correct it was withdrawn.
4. We consider there are arguable grounds which should be considered further on whether the Tribunal's approach to that was correct. We also consider there are arguable grounds on whether the Tribunal in reaching their decision adequately took account of the effect of medical evidence put in on behalf of Mr Vyas: in particular the evidence of a Dr Major, an occupational health physician, in a report dated 10 April 2000 which we have been shown for the purposes of this hearing which records that:

"Mr Vyas clearly has a significant amount of ill health. I agree that his ischaemic heart disease has been quite severe and he remains at risk of future episodes of cardio vascular disease."

5. It appears to us arguable that in the context of that accepted risk of future episode of cardio vascular disease, the medication he is taking in the hope of reducing the risks of such disease is properly to be regarded as "measures taken to treat or correct it" for the purposes of Paragraph 6 Schedule 1. We will not say any more about the details of the case. They will be for the Full Appeal Tribunal to go into. We have concluded that it is right for us to direct that there should be a full hearing on all of the grounds set out in Paragraph 6 of the Notice of Appeal dated 18 September 2001, which also include the question of whether the Tribunal adequately addressed the progressive nature of Mr Vyas' condition.
6. Accordingly, we will direct there should be a full hearing of this case before the Appeal Tribunal. We direct the estimated length of hearing should be one day, Listing Catetory B. No need for the chairman's notes of the evidence but we will direct that Mr Vyas as the Appellant, with the assistance of the Respondent, should prepare and lodge a bundle of all the medical reports that were in front of the Tribunal at the hearing. That bundle of all the medical reports before the Employment Tribunal should be prepared by the parties and added to the appeal file for the full hearing.