Mr F Kadri v HCA Healthcare UK: 2207216/2020
REASONS
[1]Given that a number of the other preliminary issues had fallen away by the outset of the hearing it was unfortunate that the only live issue, that of the Claimant’s disability status, could not be determined at today’s hearing.[2]The reason for this was not the lack of information about the Claimant’s medical conditions, or the inadequacy of his impact statement as had been suggested by the Respondent. Neither was it because the Claimant had updated his impact statement a few days before the hearing, further to a specific request from the Respondent.[3]The information available at this hearing, including discharge letters and detailed occupational health reports was sufficient to determine the issue. If there were gaps in the Claimant’s medical information, the burden of proof (and risk) fell on him.[4]The medical information supplied by the Claimant extended to all of his medical conditions, all of which the Respondent was aware of. The Respondent had not suggested that an amendment was necessary to add these medical conditions in advance of this Preliminary Hearing, an argument that the Claimant conceded – adopting a more cautious approach than was required.[5]The reason for the adjournment was that by the time the Respondent’s late application for a postponement was considered and addressed, and given a number of technical difficulties at the outset of the hearing there was insufficient time to hear the evidence and consider the issue of disability in full.[6]The Claimant wished to proceed with the Preliminary Hearing, concerned of the prejudice of having to attend a further Preliminary Hearing on the issue, with the associated risk that the substantive hearing listed for midAugust may be delayed.[7]There would indeed be greater prejudice to the Claimant from having him rush his evidence, a challenge that would be made more difficult given that the translation was not simultaneous and was beset with technical - 2 - difficulties. It was also possible to remove some of the Claimant’s concerns about delay by moving the preliminary issue to the main hearing in August 2021, such that there would be no delay.[8]Given that the alleged detriment is limited to the handling of the Claimant’s employment in the short period between his heart attack in March 2020 and his dismissal in July 2020, that much of the evidence on the issue of disability has now been exchanged and there is potential that this issue falls away or reduces in scope before the main hearing, the listing of three days in August remains sufficient to consider the issue of disability, the merits and any remedy issues.[9]Case Management directions have been ordered separately to ensure that the case remains on track for the hearing on 16, 17 & 18 August 2021.