Jobling v Corporate Medical Management Ltd

For disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a claimant must establish a physical or mental impairment producing a substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. Where the claimed mental impairment results from mental illness, the illness must be clinically well recognised. Treatment provisions do not remove the separate long-term requirement. Reasoned employment tribunal findings of fact supported by evidence will not be disturbed on an appeal limited to law. The court also indicated that a claimed physical cause of mental dysfunction requires cogent expert evidence specifically addressing that issue. Permission to appeal was refused because there was no arguable error of law.

The applicant, Jobling v Corporate Medical Management Ltd, claimed that reactive depression continued or recurred after a period of sickness absence and brought her within the definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. A majority of the Employment Tribunal held that she was not disabled and dismissed her discrimination claims. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed her appeal. On seeking permission to appeal, she argued that the case could alternatively be understood as involving a physical impairment caused by an inability of the body to produce certain chemicals, masked by medication. The central issues were whether the tribunal had made an error of law and whether the asserted mental or physical impairment satisfied the statutory requirements.

1. Disposition. Lord Justice Pill delivered the principal judgment and Lord Justice Chadwick agreed that the application should be refused. The application for permission to appeal was refused unanimously.
2. Mental impairment. The statutory definition requires a physical or mental impairment having a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Under Schedule 1 paragraph 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, a mental impairment resulting from or consisting of mental illness qualifies only where the illness is clinically well recognised. The Employment Tribunal found no relapse or recurrence at the end of 1999 and concluded that any inability after February 1999 was not the consequence of a clinically well-recognised illness. Those findings meant that the statutory criteria were not met.
3. Physical impairment and treatment. The case had been argued throughout on the basis of mental impairment. The minority member’s observation that the body might be unable to produce the relevant chemicals did not create an arguable physical-impairment case. Even assuming that analysis, the accepted medical evidence was that the impairment would have ceased within a maximum of nine months. The necessary 12-month period was therefore not established. The treatment provision in Schedule 1 paragraph 6(1) did not cure that separate failure.
4. Appellate review and expert evidence. An appeal from an Employment Tribunal lies only on a point of law. Its reasoned findings of fact, based on evidence, could not be disturbed absent an error of law, perversity or absence of evidential support. Chadwick LJ added that mental dysfunction might in principle have a physical cause amounting to physical impairment, but such a finding would require cogent expert evidence specifically addressing the issue. No such evidence was shown to have been before the tribunal.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): refused the application for permission to appeal. The judgment is reported at [2002] EWCA Civ 627.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal from the Employment Tribunal’s majority decision. The decision was sent to the parties on 30 January 2002; no citation was stated.
3. Employment Tribunal: on a preliminary issue, a majority held that the applicant was not a disabled person and dismissed her discrimination claims.