Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University. As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal. At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.
This was a preliminary hearing relating to whether the claimant was disabled for the purpose of a claim relating to disability discrimination. The question was whether the issue, which was one relating to low-mood, anxiety and depression was such that it was a substantial and long-term adverse effect as required under the Equality Act 2010 (similarly required under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in Northern Ireland).
The claimant first consulted her doctor about the impairment outlined in November 2019 when it was recorded that she had problems with low mood which then developed into anxiety and depression. As a result of the consultation the claimant was prescribed Temeazepam to help with sleep. The issues continued and fit notes were issued until 9th December. The issue leading to the claim is that the claimant was dismissed which took place in February 2020. It was only after this had occurred did the claimant go back to her doctor relating to the anxiety and depression.
The Tribunal noted that it was a new condition and it was originally thought that it could be treated. Indeed, antidepressants were not prescribed until after the appeal outcome in February 2020 which was after the period in question for the purposes of this case. There was no additional medical evidence before the court despite the fact that the Tribunal had requested a medical report. The claimant being unwilling to get one due to the expense of it. As a result, it was found that there was no evidence which outlined that the impairment was ‘likely’ to last more than 12 months. There was reference made to the decision in SCA Packaging v Boyle (2009) when it was held that likely means that it could well happen. Within the prescribed period for this case it was not likely that this could have continued for more than 12 months and as a result the claimant did not fall into the classification of having a disability. This meant that the disability discrimination claim was dismissed.
Practical Lessons
The classification of disability is one that the courts and Tribunals are regularly having to deal with. The major element here for the Tribunal is the extent to which there is evidence in place. It is for the claimant to prove that they are disabled within the meaning of the legislation therefore it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence of that. In this case, there was reticence to provide a medical report and this was detrimental to being able to discharge the burden of proof.
https://www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions/mrs-s-wallis-v-buttle-plc-3303219-slash-2020
Continue reading
We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.
Please log in to view the full article.
What you'll get:
- Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
- Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
- 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
- Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team
Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial
