[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Alexander v Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust [2005] EWCA Civ 1187 (15 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2005/1187.html Cite as: [2005] EWCA Civ 1187 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
(MR JUSTICE BURTON)
Strand London, WC2 |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
ELZA ALEXANDER | Appellant/Applicant | |
-v- | ||
GREAT ORMOND STREET HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN NHS TRUST | Respondent/Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Wordwave Limited
190 Fleet Street, London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT ATTEND AND WAS NOT REPRESENTED
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Thursday, 15th September 2005
"Subject to the provisions of Schedule 1, a person has a disability for the purposes of this Act if he has a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities."
"An impairment is to be taken to affect the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities only if it affects one of the following:
(a) mobility;
...
(f) speech, hearing or eyesight;
(g) memory or ability to concentrate, learn or understand; or
(h) perception of the risk of physical danger."
"An impairment which would be likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the ability of the person concerned to carry out normal day-to-day activities, but for the fact that measures are being taken to treat or correct it, is to be treated as having that effect."
"...there seems to have been a gradual increase in the level of frustration, despondency, poor concentration, lethargy, tearfulness, poor sleep and low self-worth, which occurred during 1999 to 2002."
"By 2001 her level of distress about work had became so high, her concentration and self-confidence so low that she found it increasingly difficult to go to work."
"We have the doctor's uncontested evidence that, during the period 1999 to 2002, there was a gradual increase in the level of frustration, despondency, poor concentration, lethargy, tearfulness, poor sleep and low self-worth... Accordingly, we are satisfied that the Claimant had been suffering from a mental impairment within the meaning of the statute from about mid-1999."
"...as a matter of fact, we have not received evidence from the Claimant that this was why she was unable to go to work in November 2001. In our judgment, she has singularly failed to address this aspect of the case in any of her written or oral evidence."
"...the Claimant has failed to provide us with the necessary relevant evidence of the effect of the disability upon her ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in the period up to the termination of employment on 21 February 2002."
"In our view the medical evidence in this case stops short of describing the ease or otherwise with which the Claimant could carry out day-to-day activities. In short, the Claimant's evidence fails to address the issue."
"... she is getting significant disability at home from her hearing impairment and as a result I have arranged for her to have a hearing aid fitted."
"We cannot be sure that the audiogram referred to is different from the one set-out in the earlier letter of 10 August. Although the Claimant places some reliance on this letter, we think it is dangerous to read it out of context."
"We consider that up to this point in the chronology the evidence is ambiguous; frequently qualified by the reported opinion of Audiologists that the Claimant could hear more than the tests were showing; and, further, has not been the subject of any medical evidence that can explain it."
"The evidence of the Claimant concerning her difficulty in hearing during meetings was... imprecise and left open to considerable doubt after cross-examination."
"We were told by Mr Coghlin [counsel for Great Ormond Street]... that in fact the Claimant, who was represented by [counsel] before the Tribunal, had in fact specifically not relied upon that first statement at the Tribunal hearing. The Claimant, not having been in charge of the case herself, did not feel able to accept that that was the position, and so a question was asked at the Tribunal which has confirmed that, in fact, the statement was specifically not relied upon or referred to, and was removed from the bundle."
"The fact that the Appellant was fitted with a hearing aid to the right ear in November 2001 was considered... It is referred to in the Appellant's witness statement at paragraph 21(a). In addition she referred to it in oral evidence, saying that it was fitted on 22nd November 2001."
"... it is clear that the Tribunal knew of the fitting of the aid, and it is clear that the Tribunal's overall conclusion in relation to hearing loss was that there was no evidence of deleterious effect on day-to-day living, either before or after November 2001."
"Thank you for your letter and enclosing an audiogram from 21st July 2000. I would look on this as a moderate degree of hearing loss."
ORDER: application refused; copy of transcript of judgment to applicant at public expense.