N Moustache v Chelsea and Westminster NHS Foundation Trust
[2022] EAT 204
Christopher Rodger v Forestry and Land Scotland
6 November 2024
[2024] EAT 172
Employment Appeal Tribunal
Someone claimed disability discrimination at work but lost their case. They appealed, arguing the judge didn't look at all the evidence properly. The appeals court said the judge had looked at enough evidence and made a decision that was allowed, so the original decision stood.
Key Facts
- •Christopher Rodger (Appellant) appealed an employment tribunal decision dismissing his disability discrimination claim against Forestry and Land Scotland (Respondent).
- •The tribunal found the Appellant lacked title and interest, lacking jurisdiction to consider his claim.
- •The appeal focused on whether the tribunal misapplied evidence regarding the Appellant's disability under the Equality Act 2010.
- •The Appellant's evidence included certified absences, Occupational Health reports, medication prescriptions, and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) participation.
- •The tribunal concluded the Appellant's absences were unconnected in the absence of a medical diagnosis of depression.
Legal Principles
Whether the tribunal misapplied or misconstrued the evidence concerning the Appellant's disability under section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.
Equality Act 2010, section 6
Tribunals are not required to explicitly address all evidence; failure to mention specific evidence is not an error of law unless it indicates a misapplication of the law.
DPP Law Ltd v Greenberg [2021] EWCA Civ 672 at paragraph 57
A tribunal's conclusion will not be overturned if it is a decision open to it on the evidence, even if another conclusion could have been reasonably reached.
Melon v Hector Powe 1980 SC 188 at 198 (referenced but not directly applied)
Outcomes
The appeal was refused.
The Appellant failed to demonstrate any error of law by the tribunal. The tribunal considered the relevant evidence, asked the correct questions, and reached a conclusion open to it on the evidence. The tribunal's failure to explicitly address all evidence was not an error of law.