Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Case round-up

by Personnel Today 13 May 2003
by Personnel Today 13 May 2003

This week’s case round-up

Employer can be held liable for acts of contractors
Ree v Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Limited, EAT, EAT/0035/03

n In this decision, the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) decided that an
employer could be held liable for disability discrimination arising from the
acts of third parties, in the same way that it could for sex and race
discrimination.

Ree, an apprentice bricklayer, was dyslexic. He brought a complaint of
disability discrimination against his employer, claiming he had been subjected
to bullying at work.

The company accepted Ree was a disabled person, but argued that under the
provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA), it could not be held
responsible for any bullying carried out by contract workers on site who were
not its employees. The tribunal agreed and dismissed Ree’s complaints.

Ree appealed, arguing that the principles of liability for sex and race
discrimination (established in Burton v De Vere Hotels Limited,1996, IRLR 596)
should also apply to disability discrimination, namely that the employer is
responsible for acts of discrimination that were sufficiently under its control
to have prevented them.

The appeal was allowed.

While the definition of discrimination under the DDA differs from that in
the Sex Discrimination Act and Race Relations Act, the EAT adopted a purposive
approach to the legislation.

It concluded that disabled individuals should have protection from
harassment by third parties in line with the principles established in race and
sex discrimination.

The EAT acknowledged that in allowing the claim to proceed, it was pushing
the legal boundaries. For this reason, it gave leave for the parties to appeal
to the Court of Appeal.

Incontinence was a disability
Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited, CA, [2003] All ER(D) 190

The Court of Appeal held that an employee, who was left partially
incontinent following surgery to treat prostate cancer, was disabled within the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) as a result of a progressive condition.

Kirton suffered urinary incontinence as a direct result of an operation he
underwent following a diagnosis of prostate cancer. In his complaint of
disability discrimination, Kirton argued that his impairment resulted from a
progressive condition and was therefore a disability under the DDA.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Both the tribunal and the EAT held that Kirton was not disabled as a result
of a progressive condition, because his impairment (incontinence) resulted from
the surgery and not the progressive condition itself (cancer).

Kirton’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was upheld on the basis that to hold
that his impairment was not the result of his prostate cancer was to apply an
overly limited interpretation of the legislation. The DDA was intended to
protect disabled people who had progressive conditions from the moment symptoms
first appeared. Kirton’s incontinence was sufficiently linked to the cancer to
result from it, notwithstanding the intervening act of surgery.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Redundancy fear haunts Europeans
next post
Employees call for congestion charging across UK

You may also like

Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders receive 400% pay rise

4 Jul 2025

FCA to extend misconduct rules beyond banks

2 Jul 2025

‘Decisive action’ needed to boost workers’ pensions

2 Jul 2025

Business leaders’ drop in confidence impacts headcount

2 Jul 2025

Why we need to rethink soft skills in...

1 Jul 2025

Five misconceptions about hiring refugees

20 Jun 2025

Forward features list 2025 – submitting content to...

23 Nov 2024

Features list 2021 – submitting content to Personnel...

1 Sep 2020

Large firms have no plans to bring all...

26 Aug 2020

A typical work-from-home lunch: crisps

24 Aug 2020

  • Empowering working parents and productivity during the summer holidays SPONSORED | Businesses play a...Read more
  • AI is here. Your workforce should be ready. SPONSORED | From content creation...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+