MR N WILSON-WRIGHT v NOTTINGHAMSHIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUST [1999] UKEAT 437_99_0807

EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
BAILII case number: [1999] UKEAT 437_99_0807Case No Appeal No. EAT/437/99Venue 58 VICTORIA EMBANKMENT, LONDON EC4Y 0DS
Between
MR N WILSON-WRIGHTAPPELLANTNOTTINGHAMSHIRE AMBULANCE SERVICE NHS TRUSTRESPONDENT
Before
His Honour Judge H Wilson Mr D A C Lambert Mrs R A VickersDate 8 July 1999
[1]APPEARANCES For the Appellant MR T KIBLING (of Counsel) Messrs Nelsons Solicitors Jo McCarthy Pennine House 8 Stanford Street Nottingham NG1 7BQ JUDGE WILSON: This hearing has been the preliminary hearing in connection with the proposed appeal against the decision of the Employment Tribunal which had to consider a number of matters. The Applicant's claim before the Tribunal was in various parts and the arguments in support of the appeal today have centred, really, about the way in which the Employment Tribunal dealt with those matters before it under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 where the Employment Tribunal found in the Applicant's favour. There is complaint about the way in which the Tribunal dealt with what Mr Kibling, who is representing the Appellant today, has called in his Skeleton Argument the "adjustment issue".[2]Mr Kibling has drawn our attention to the way in which the various aspects of adjustment were dealt with by the Employment Tribunal and has satisfied us that there should be full argument on the question whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in the way in which it dealt with the aspects of the question of adjustment under the 1995 Act and in particular, those matters set out in the Notice of Appeal at paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 and 3.4.[3]We give leave to the Appellant to file an amended Notice of Appeal taking account of the limited way in which we have indicated the matter should go forward for full argument and the Respondent will have opportunity to be heard about any proposed amendments which are made and then in due course to file an amended answer to it. We have in mind also, and wish to make clear that the other matters of appeal in the Skeleton Argument we clearly regard as relevant to the issue which is to be argued fully, namely the adjustment issue.[4]We allocate the appeal to Category A and we give an time estimate of three hours.