Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS At the Tribunal On 5 November 2003 Before
It is right to say that Mr Withington also points to the last sentence of that same paragraph in which the Tribunal say:
which at least, from one point of view, could be read as directing itself to the wrong period in terms.
It is accepted that that is a somewhat ambiguous statement, but it may well apply to the fact that concentration for more than one and a half hours is not required if the meeting is only lasting that long, and he continued:
What was therefore in issue before the Tribunal was whether the mental impairment, which was common ground to be constituted by the disorder to which I have referred, had an effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities and as to whether that effect was substantial. 17 So far as effect on day-to-day activities is concerned, there is considerable help to be obtained from Schedule 1 to the Act, paragraph 4 of which reads in material part as follows:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.