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 9 November 2001 Judgment delivered on 30 September 2002 Before
The reference to the doctor's letter is, we take it, to the letter from the psychiatrist that had been disclosed at the meeting of 20th July 1998 but had thereafter been mishandled (innocently, as it would seem; certainly there is no finding suggesting otherwise).
Had she said so it would have been likely to have emerged that Mr Jones had not seen the psychiatrist's letter.
Mr Capewell's note of the meeting, addressed to Mr de Marco and then sent on to Mr�Jones, included:-
We will need to return to the threat to use the male toilets but at this point note only that Ms�Croft's request was not now to be satisfied by the use of the one specific designated female toilet, the one closest to the loading bay, but was a request to use "the female toilets". The compromising tone of the 15th January had gone.
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.