[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Patrick Reilly v. P C World [2004] UKEAT 0032_04_2708 (27 August 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2004/0032_04_2708.html Cite as: [2004] UKEAT 32_4_2708, [2004] UKEAT 0032_04_2708

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

APPEARANCES

 

 

For the Appellant	Mr H Olsen, Advocate Instructed by- Ian Kennedy WS Local Agent for- Sentinel Employment Law The Glass Cube Houston Road LIVINGSTON EH54 5BZ
For the Respondents	Mr B Napier, Queen's Counsel Instructed by- Messrs Kidstons Solicitors 1 Royal Bank Place Buchanan Street GLASGOW G1 3AA

SUMMARY
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION

Disability discrimination - adjustments


 


LORD JOHNSTON:

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the employee which raises, despite the length of the grounds of appeal, two very short points, succinctly put by Mr Olsen on his behalf. Firstly, he identified a part of the Tribunal's findings, in relation to the evidence of two witnesses, Mrs Dwyer and Mr Cassidy, and submitted that the Tribunal had reached a perverse decision, in respect that they had not accepted the evidence of Mrs Dwyer, given that there was an inconsistency. Suffice it to say for the purposes of this appeal, that we do not consider the Tribunal misdirected themselves on this point, it being for them to assess the evidence of the witnesses. In any event, there was no finding that Mrs Dwyer had actually lied.
2. The second and quite separate point related to a suggestion on behalf of the appellant that the Tribunal had misdirected themselves in this approach to the Disability Discrimination Act, and in particularly sections 5(2) and 6(1).
3. Here again, we are entirely satisfied that the Tribunal addressed the proper question inasmuch that no evidence was led before them to suggest the basis upon which adjustments should or had been made, either to disfavour the appellant or to improve his position. On a proper reading of the decision, in our opinion, disablement was nothing to the point, given that the appellant could carry out the task in question.
4. In these circumstances and for these short reasons, this appeal fails and will be dismissed.