39:
136:
said "the word substantial does not mean that the employer must necessarily have reached the best conclusion that could be reached in the light of all known medical science. Employers are not obliged to search for the Holy Grail."
117:
Mr Jones was a Royal Mail driver. He became diabetic and insulin dependent and was removed from driving duties. The Post had done their own medical appraisal, which turned out to be wrong. He alleged that his dismissal was unfair.
130:
said "Where a properly conducted risk assessment provides a reason which is on its face both material and substantial, and is not irrational, the tribunal cannot substitute its own appraisal."
216:
162:
211:
221:
206:
38:
49:
106:
154:
176:
145:
This case has been subject to considerable academic criticism, for introducing (without any apparent statutory authority) a "
146:
186:
200:
181:
102:
17:
149:" test. A number of cases after have limited and tacitly undermined its effect.
133:
127:
126:
The Court of Appeal, in a controversial decision, held it was not.
84:
76:
71:
63:
55:
45:
31:
8:
163:Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Ltd
37:
28:
217:Court of Appeal (England and Wales) cases
7:
50:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
107:Disability Discrimination Act 1995
25:
155:Paul v National Probation Service
212:United Kingdom equality case law
177:UK employment discrimination law
222:2001 in United Kingdom case law
207:United Kingdom labour case law
1:
147:reasonable range of responses
238:
90:Employment, Discrimination
89:
80:Kay LJ, Arden LJ, Pill LJ
36:
141:Subsequent developments
67:EWCA Civ 558, IRLR 384
187:Human Rights Act 1998
98:Jones v Post Office
32:Jones v Post Office
18:Post Office v Jones
94:
93:
16:(Redirected from
229:
105:case, under the
72:Court membership
41:
29:
21:
237:
236:
232:
231:
230:
228:
227:
226:
197:
196:
195:
173:
143:
124:
115:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
235:
233:
225:
224:
219:
214:
209:
199:
198:
194:
191:
190:
189:
184:
179:
172:
169:
168:
167:
159:
142:
139:
123:
120:
114:
111:
101:IRLR 384 is a
92:
91:
87:
86:
82:
81:
78:
77:Judges sitting
74:
73:
69:
68:
65:
61:
60:
57:
53:
52:
47:
43:
42:
34:
33:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
234:
223:
220:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
204:
202:
192:
188:
185:
183:
182:UK labour law
180:
178:
175:
174:
170:
165:
164:
160:
157:
156:
152:
151:
150:
148:
140:
138:
135:
131:
129:
121:
119:
112:
110:
108:
104:
103:UK labour law
100:
99:
88:
83:
79:
75:
70:
66:
62:
59:11 April 2001
58:
54:
51:
48:
44:
40:
35:
30:
27:
19:
161:
153:
144:
132:
125:
116:
97:
96:
95:
26:
201:Categories
171:See also
166:IRLR 395
158:IRLR 190
134:Arden LJ
122:Judgment
85:Keywords
64:Citation
128:Pill LJ
56:Decided
193:Notes
113:Facts
46:Court
203::
109:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
