Ross v Precision Industrial Services Ltd

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant had been employed by the Respondent since March 1994, working in an inspection and packing role at a plant near The City. The Appellant developed seborrhoeic eczema in 2001 and sought not to work in certain areas due to concerns about exacerbating his condition. Medical reports from a consultant dermatologist, Doctor Podmore, were submitted, describing the severity and triggers of the eczema, including flare-ups in warm and dusty environments and possible effects on manual dexterity if the hands were affected. At the tribunal hearing, the Appellant gave evidence that his condition adversely affected his manual dexterity and ability to lift or carry everyday objects, though this conflicted with his demonstrated ability to perform similar tasks at work. The tribunal observed the Appellant’s hands during the hearing and found little evidence of active symptoms. The Appellant had been off work for two and a half months due to stress and depression at the time of the hearing. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether the Appellant was disabled under the criteria of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 based on his condition and its impact on day-to-day activities.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Was the tribunal correct in law in holding that the Appellant was not a disabled person for the purposes of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?
2. In reaching the conclusion that the Appellant was not disabled under the Act, was the tribunal correct in law in taking into account the Appellant's condition as it was at the date of the hearing?

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant asserted that his seborrhoeic eczema adversely affected his manual dexterity and ability to lift, carry, or move everyday objects as defined in Schedule 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.
• He claimed difficulties with household tasks, such as not being able to tie shoelaces, lift shopping bags, or cooking pots, and problems with buttons and toileting due to irritation and pain on his hands.
• He maintained that his condition was ongoing, with flare-ups despite ongoing treatment including creams and gloves to prevent worsening symptoms.

Respondents' Arguments

• The Respondents argued that the Appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that his condition substantially affected his normal day-to-day activities.
• They contended that the tribunal's findings of fact should not be disturbed and that there was adequate material to conclude the Appellant was not substantially affected by his skin condition.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed whether the Appellant’s seborrhoeic eczema constituted a disability under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 by applying the statutory criteria: the presence of a physical or mental impairment, the impairment’s substantial and long-term adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities, and whether the impairment affected one or more specified activities such as manual dexterity or the ability to lift or carry everyday objects.

The tribunal took into account the Appellant’s condition as it was at the date of the hearing, including direct observation of his hands, which showed little evidence of active symptoms such as redness or hacking. The tribunal considered the inconsistency between the Appellant’s evidence of difficulty with daily tasks at home and his demonstrated ability to perform similar tasks at work. The court noted that while seborrhoeic eczema can adversely affect day-to-day activities in general, the evidence did not establish that the Appellant’s condition had a substantial adverse effect on his ability to carry out such activities.

Further, the court emphasized that proof, preferably expert medical evidence, is required to demonstrate a substantial adverse effect, and that mere assertions of potential worsening without evidence of current substantial impairment are insufficient.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to uphold the tribunal’s finding that the Appellant was not a disabled person within the meaning of section 1 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.

Holding: The Appellant is not considered disabled under the Act.

Implications: The decision directly affects the parties by confirming that the Appellant’s condition does not meet the statutory threshold for disability discrimination protection. No new legal precedent was established by this ruling.