Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Justice Licence v1.0.
Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
(Jun 19, 2025)
Copy Cite
[2025] NICA 32
Case Information
Click here to read the full judgment
Lucas v Eurocoach (NI) Ltd
Smart Summary (Beta)
Factual and Procedural Background
The Appellant was employed by the Respondent as a bus/coach driver from 15 October 2015. The Appellant claimed that the Respondent was aware from December 2015 that he suffered from a disability. In December 2020, discussions took place that led to a reduction in the Appellant’s working hours. The Appellant pursued disciplinary and grievance complaints which were not resolved to his satisfaction.
On 6 October 2021, the Appellant filed a claim form asserting that his employment contract was unilaterally varied without consent, resulting in unlawful deductions of wages from January 2021 onwards. The Appellant also alleged disability discrimination, specifically that he was denied access to a minimum 35 hours of CPC (Certificate of Professional Competence) training provided to other drivers. He sought approximately £6,000 in lost earnings and other damages, including for injury to feelings, victimisation, and harassment.
The Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims on 3 October 2024. The Appellant subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal by notice dated 14 November 2024. The appeal concerns alleged errors of law, disregard of evidence, and procedural fairness issues.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the Appellant’s claims of unlawful deduction of wages and unilateral variation of contract.
- Whether the Tribunal misapplied or misinterpreted provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 4A.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in its assessment of time limitations applicable to the claims.
- Whether the Tribunal improperly rejected evidence or failed to consider relevant medical reports.
- Whether procedural fairness was compromised in the conduct of the Tribunal hearing and judgment.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Richman v Knowsley MBC [UKEAT/0047/13/DM] | Addressing time limitation and reconsideration of employer decisions in discrimination claims. | Not binding precedent; the court found the ground relying on this case unsustainable and factually distinguishable. |
| Environment Agency v Rowan [2007] UKEAT 0060/07/0111 | Assessment of continuing failure to make reasonable adjustments versus one-off acts. | Applied to reject the Appellant’s argument regarding footwear adjustment; ground found to lack merit. |
| Mallon v Aecom Limited [UKEAT/0175/20/LA] | Disability adjustment claims and the test for reasonable prospect of success on strike out. | Found by the court to be factually dissimilar and not supportive of the Appellant’s case. |
| Archibald v Fife Council [2004] IRLR 651 | Interpretation of “provision, criterion or practice” under DDA and employer’s duty to make reasonable adjustments. | The Tribunal’s reasoning was consistent with Archibald; no error of law found in its application. |
| Nesbitt v The Pallett Centre [2019] NICA 67 | Principles governing appellate review of findings of fact by Tribunals. | The court applied these principles to uphold the Tribunal’s factual findings as legally unchallengeable. |
| Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary v Sergeant A [2000] NI 261 | Guidance on appellate courts’ limited role in re-evaluating Tribunal fact findings. | Supported the court’s deferential approach to the Tribunal’s conclusions. |
| Fire Brigades Union v Fraser [1998] IRLR 697 | Limits on Tribunal inferences based on speculation. | Referenced to confirm that the Tribunal’s conclusions were supported by evidence, not speculation. |
| Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow [1956] AC 14 | Standard for appellate courts overturning factual conclusions as perverse. | The court found no perverse conclusions in the Tribunal’s judgment. |
| McConnell v Police Authority for Northern Ireland [1997] NI 253 | Precedent on appellate review of Tribunal fact findings. | Reinforced the court’s approach to defer to Tribunal’s findings. |
| Kerr v Jamison [2019] NICA 48 | Weight attributed to trial judge’s advantage in assessing credibility and demeanor. | Applied to support the Tribunal’s credibility assessments. |
| Heaney v McAvoy [2018] NICA 4 | Deference to first instance findings based on oral evidence. | Used to justify the court’s reluctance to overturn Tribunal’s findings. |
| Herron v Bank of Scotland [2018] NICA 11 | Similar principles on appellate review of fact findings. | Supported the court’s approach to uphold Tribunal decisions. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Principles governing adduction of fresh evidence on appeal. | Applied to reject Appellant’s application for discovery and fresh evidence. |
| Balcetis v Ulster Bus and Translink [2021] NICA 9 | Standards for reviewing Tribunal decisions on law and fact. | Quoted to affirm the Tribunal’s decision was rational, lawful, and fair. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court of Appeal undertook a detailed review of the Tribunal’s judgment, including its extensive factual findings and legal analysis under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and related employment law provisions. The Tribunal’s approach incorporated a thorough timeline of events, resolution of factual disputes, and application of statutory time limits.
The court noted that the Tribunal’s findings of fact were supported by evidence and were not perverse, speculative, or legally flawed. The Tribunal correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions, including the duty to make reasonable adjustments and time limitation rules. The Tribunal’s rejection of the Appellant’s claims for discrimination, victimisation, harassment, and unlawful wage deductions was based on a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.
The court found that many of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal amounted to challenges to factual findings or unparticularised assertions of legal error or bias, none of which were substantiated. The court emphasized the high threshold for overturning Tribunal fact findings and the limited scope for appellate interference absent clear legal error or procedural unfairness.
Procedural fairness was affirmed, with the court noting the Tribunal’s scrupulous conduct and accommodation of the self-represented Appellant. Applications for discovery and recusal were dismissed as without merit.
The court also addressed specific points raised by the Appellant, including alleged errors in the handling of CPC training, furlough pay, footwear adjustments, medical evidence, and exhaustion of annual leave, finding no legal or factual basis to disturb the Tribunal’s conclusions.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
The court held that the Employment Tribunal’s decision was free from material error of law, supported by ample evidence, and procedurally fair. The Tribunal’s comprehensive factual findings and legal reasoning were upheld as the only rational outcome. The dismissal of the Appellant’s claims stands, and no new precedent was established. The direct effect is the final rejection of the Appellant’s claims against the Respondent.
Click here to read the full judgment
This is a paid feature.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Please subscribe to download the judgment.
Size
= Directly proportional to the number of citations
Color = Jurisdiction
U.S. Supreme Court
State Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
District Courts
Line Incoming
= Cited by Outgoing =
Cites
Use AI to get other relevant cases.
Comments