Condappa v Newham Healthcare Trust

Disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 must be assessed at the relevant statutory time. A tribunal does not err by also considering the claimant’s condition at the hearing, provided its reasons show that it addressed the relevant period. Appellate courts should read tribunal reasons fairly and as a whole. Imperfect drafting or changes in tense do not establish an error of law where the correct issue was considered. A challenge concerning the long-term effect of an impairment may fail with the relevant-time challenge where it adds no independent argument.

The applicant, a midwifery sister, brought Employment Tribunal proceedings after resigning from her employment. She alleged constructive dismissal, breach of contract, unfair dismissal and disability discrimination arising from a back condition and an injury sustained on 21 May 1998.

The Employment Tribunal found that she was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal on 4 December 2001, finding no error of law. The renewed application concerned whether the Tribunal had assessed disability at the relevant period rather than only at the hearing, and whether it had properly addressed the long-term effect of the impairment.

Application dismissed. Mummery LJ delivered the leading judgment and Peter Gibson LJ agreed. The renewed application for permission to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success and disclosed no error of law.

1. The Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction was confined to questions of law arising from the Employment Tribunal’s decision. The Tribunal had to determine whether the applicant had a disability at the relevant statutory time, rather than simply at the date of the hearing.
2. On a fair reading of the Extended Reasons, the Tribunal considered both periods. Its account of the medical evidence addressed the applicant’s condition after the May 1998 injury and during the relevant period before her resignation. Its observations of her at the hearing addressed the alleged continuing disability and did not displace consideration of the earlier period.
3. The Tribunal had considered the statutory question whether the back problem had a substantial adverse effect on the applicant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Its conclusion that it had not done so was a finding supported by the evidence and did not disclose an error of law.
4. Tribunal reasons should be read fairly and reasonably as a whole, rather than subjected to excessively minute scrutiny. Although the reasoning could have been expressed more clearly and used varying tenses, it showed that the relevant period had been considered. The challenge concerning the long-term effect under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 added nothing to the first ground and therefore also had no real prospect of success.

Order: application dismissed.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the renewed application for permission to appeal; [2002] EWCA Civ 420.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: On 4 December 2001, dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal, holding that there was no error of law.
• Employment Tribunal: In Extended Reasons sent on 24 February 2000, found that the applicant was not disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.