Ishola v Transport for London [2020] EWCA Civ 112

Appeal against the ET’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that there was no PCP operated by the Respondent. Appeal dismissed.

The Claimant, who was at all material times a disabled person, was dismissed by the Respondent on grounds of medical incapacity. He brought wide-ranging claims in the ET, including for unlawful disability and race discrimination, but they were all generally dismissed. The ET held, in relation to the Respondent's duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, that there was no provision, criterion or practice ("PCP") operated by the Respondent because the alleged requirement was "a one-off act in the course of dealings with one individual", and the EAT upheld that conclusion. The Claimant appealed on the ground that too narrow and technical an approach was taken to the reasonable adjustments claim, in that the ET and EAT should have found that the Respondent operated a PCP of requiring the Claimant to return to work without concluding a proper and fair investigation into his grievances, which he says were not properly and fairly investigated prior to his dismissal.

The Court of Appeal held that, however widely and purposively the concept of a PCP was to be interpreted, it did not apply to every act of unfair treatment of a particular employee. All three words ("provision", "criterion" and "practice") carried the connotation of a state of affairs indicating how a similar case would be treated if it occurred again; although a one-off decision or act could be a practice, it was not necessarily one.

Published: 14/02/2020 13:23

Sign up for free email alerts

Email address
First name
Last name
Receive daily
Receive weekly
I agree to this site's terms and conditions