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 15 February 2005 Judgment delivered on 23 May 2005 Before
The ET did not err in law when it decided that the Claimant because of his inability to participate in a disciplinary hearing on account of his profound deafness, had been unfairly dismissed.
The ET correctly applied the judgment of the EAT in Whitbread & Co Plc v Mills [1988] IRLR 501. There is no relevant distinction in the approach in that case and of the EAT in Advihilli v Exports Credits Guaranteed Department unreported EAT/917/97.
The ET did not err in finding that the Respondent had failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disability in the disciplinary process.
Allowing the cross-appeal, the ET had failed to apply its finding that the Claimant was dismissed for misconduct, but his dismissal occurred because at least in part he was unable effectively to participate in the disciplinary process and could not put forward explanations when put to him, and they were reasons which related to his disability.
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.