Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016]
Galo v Bombardier Aerospace UK [2016]
Published on: 01/07/2016
Issues Covered:
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Legal Island
Legal Island
{}
Background

The Northern Ireland Court of Appeal has ruled that an employment failed to reasonably accommodate the needs of a claimant with Asperger's Syndrome.

The NICA concluded that the appellant did not benefit from a fair procedural hearing in the course of the various Case Management Hearings and the hearing itself. Those findings will be of particular interest to the OITFET and other NI courts, as well as lawyers and other representatives operating within other legal systems, including the Republic of Ireland, where the statutory concept of reasonable accommodation is largely analogous to reasonable adjustment in the UK. The Court made a final observation in relation to adjournments, arguments on which had been made by the claimant's counsel, Mr Potter, which might be of interest to non-representatives as well:

"...Counsel cited to us some authorities on the question of the discretion of a tribunal/court to grant or refuse adjournments. In particular our attention was drawn to Cathaill v Transport for London [2013] IRLR 3010, Teinaz v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2002] ICR 1471 and Kotecha v Insurety t/a Capital Health Care UKEAT/0537/09 [2010] All ER (D) 94. We do not need to deal with these matters in detail simply because the issue of procedural fairness goes much wider than the narrow issue of failing to adjourn. We simply pause to observe that we do not accept the assertion of Mr Potter that it is unlawful for a tribunal to insist that a condition for adjournment is that a medical report is produced outlining the reasons why the appellant is unfit to attend together with a prognosis as to when he will be fit to attend. There is nothing improper per se in a court doing this where otherwise a court would be in the impossible position of having no idea when the court could be convened for a hearing. Moreover in circumstances where no adequate medical evidence can be produced, it would not of itself be unlawful for a tribunal to take a view as to the litigant's fitness to present a case based on seeing and hearing from him in person albeit that would probably be a rarity."

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NICA/2016/25.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 01/07/2016