Cases - Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth

Record details

Name

Kapadia v London Borough of Lambeth

Date

[2000]

Citation

EWCA Civ B1

Legislation

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Keywords

Expert witness

Summary

A council employee who had taken lots of time off work with depression was retired on medical grounds. He claimed disability discrimination and 2 experts gave evidence of an underlying disability. No evidence from the local authority was called to challenge this, but the employment tribunal rejected the discrimination claim. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) allowed the employee's appeal and this was upheld by the Court of Appeal.

'The direct evidence ... came from two medical experts ... There was no contrary expert medical evidence. There was no challenge to the factual bases of those opinions. Nor were there any peculiar circumstances which would enable those opinions to be challenged ... [T]he employment tribunal was obliged to come to the conclusion that the employee had proved his case and erred in not so doing.'

Further:

'There will be cases in which a fact-finding tribunal is not obliged to accept uncontested medical evidence given to it. For example, the evidence on the basis of which a doctor has formed an opinion may be rejected by the fact-finding tribunal. There may be cases where it is clear that the medical witness has misunderstood the evidence which he was invited to consider in expressing his opinion. No such considerations apply, however, in this case.'

Note that, in a separate finding, the Court of Appeal held that the employee's agreement to be examined by the council's experts constituted implied consent for the experts' reports to be shown to the council; no further permission was needed.