The full text of this judgment is available free of charge on the BAILII website.
Representation:
Mr T. Bains, Citizens Advice Bureau Specialist Support Unit , The Development Centre, Coxwell Avenue, Wolverhampton Science Park, Wolverhampton WV10 9RT for Mr Dunham
Mr T. Kibling instructed by Messrs Eversheds, Solicitors, Holland Court , The Close, Norwich, Norfolk NR1 4DX for Ashford Windows.
Authority for the propositions that:-
in layman's language:
- generalised "learning difficulties" can count as a disability for purposes of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 if they have a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the person concerned's ability to carry out normal day to day activities notwithstanding that they do not amount to a clinically well-recognised illness; and
- whilst the claimant in a disability discrimination case must prove that he suffers from a disability within the meaning of the Act, there is no absolute requirement that evidence must be provided by a doctor - evidence from a suitably qualified expert who is not a doctor can be acceptable.
in legal language
a "mental impairment" is not necessarily a "mental illness" and the words "only if the illness is a clinically well recognised illness" in Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Sch.1 para (1)(1) do not apply in the case of a mental impairment which does not consist of mental illness (per HHJ Burke at para 37).
For relevant general notes see Disability Discrimination/meaning of disability .
editor's note:
the need for "mental illness" to be clinically well-recognised to qualify as a disability for DDA purposes is removed as from 5th December 2005 by Disability Discrimination Act 2005 s.18(2), which repeals Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Sch.1 para (1).
FINISH>
prepared June2005