[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Employment Appeal Tribunal >> Johnson v. Camden & Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust & Ors [2001] UKEAT 900_01_1012 (10 December 2001) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKEAT/2001/900_01_1012.html Cite as: [2001] UKEAT 900_1_1012, [2001] UKEAT 900_01_1012

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

APPEARANCES

 

For the Appellant	MR JAMES LADDIE (of Counsel) Instructed By: Royal College of Nursing Legal Services Dept 20 Cavendish Square London W1G 0RN


 


JUDGE D M LEVY QC:

1. This is an appeal by Mrs Johnson ("the Appellant"). The Appellant retired from her employment as a Health Visitor and subsequently sought further employment from the Camden & Islington Community Health NHS Trust ("the Trust"). She was refused such employment. She made a complaint to an Employment Tribunal naming the Trust and others as Respondents ("the Respondents") There was a three day hearing from 21 to 23 May 2001 when all sides were represented by Counsel. The unanimous decision of the Tribunal promulgated on 8 June 2001 was unanimous that the Appellant was not the subject of discrimination on the grounds of her disability. A Notice of Appeal was lodged dated 19 July 2001 and this is the ex parte hearing of that appeal.
2. The Appellant is represented today by Mr Laddie, not the Counsel below. We have heard lengthy submissions from him and, at the end of those submissions, we are satisfied that there is an arguable case that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in failing to follow the guidance set out in Morse v Wiltshire County Council [1998] IRLR 352. Looking at sections 5(2) and 5(4) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, it is arguable that there was a failure to scrutinise the Respondents' explanations as to what factors it considered or failed to consider in reaching its decision. Further there was possibly a failure to find appropriate facts on these questions.
3. We consider that those two grounds should go forward for full argument on appeal. Mr Laddie may wish to introduce grounds of appeal not within the grounds of appeal lodged earlier. If he wishes so to do, he must submit a further amended ground of appeal within the next 14 days on which the Respondents will have the opportunity, if they wish, to object to the full hearing of the appeal.

Category C – one day. Normal orders about exchange of documents and Respondents' notice.