Government Communications Headquarters v Bacchus  UKEAT 0373_12_0608Posted In: Case Law
Legal BodyEmployment Appeal Tribunal (UKEAT)
Type of Claim / JurisdictionDiscrimination and Equality
The claimant alleged disability discrimination based on anxiety and stress. He submitted his own psychiatric evidence, but refused to be examined by any of the respondent's medical experts. The tribunal found that this refusal was unjustified, but declined to strike out or stay the proceedings, deciding that it would hear the claim without psychiatric evidence from either side.
The respondent appealed.
The EAT found that the Employment Tribunal had considered the wrong question when reaching its decision. The question was not whether it could decide the issue of disability on the basis of the existing evidence, but whether the respondent could have properly prepared his case without instructing an expert. In the case, medical evidence was necessary for a number of reasons: - to establish if the claimant was disabled for the purposes of the Equality Act 2000; whether the practice, criteria or procedures put him at a disadvantage compared to people who were not disabled; whether reasonable adjustments could have prevented any disadvantage and the remedy available.
The EAT found that the respondent had not been able to properly prepare his defence without the examination. The EAT granted an “unless order” requiring the claimant to present himself for examination by a certain date, with the consequence that his case would be struck out for non-compliance if he did not do so.
More on Discrimination & Equality
- Is long COVID likely to be viewed as a disability? Will employers be obliged to make adjustments for employees suffering from this?
- Commissioner of the City of London Police v Geldart 
- Elliott v Dorset County Council 
- De Lacey v Wechseln Ltd (t/a Andrew Hill Salon) 
- Balcetis v Ulsterbus Ltd & Translink 
The information in this article is provided as part of Legal-Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article.