Veitch Penny LLP - Exeter | Crediton, Devon

Case

Hanlon v Kirklees Metropolitan Council
Employment Appeal Tribunal - (4 August 2004)

Issues

(1) Employment Tribunal procedure
(2) Disclosure of medical records
(3) Application to strike out

Facts

Mr Hanlon was employed by outside contractors working for the Respondent. He was in charge of the CCTV screens operated by the Respondent. Events came to a head in 2002 when there was a proposed shift change. Mr Hanlon informed his employers that not only did he have a physical disability relating to his leg but that he was also suffering from a mental condition. There was agreed a temporary change in his shift pattern, but Mr Hanlon was of the view that it had been agreed as a permanent change. From that time the employment relationship deteriorated and eventually Mr Hanlon’s employment came to an end.

Mr Hanlon made an application to the Tribunal under the Disability Discrimination Act against Kirklees Metropolitan Council and a number of their employees. The Respondent then made a Request for Further and Better Particulars from Mr Hanlon, particularly in relation to how he contended that Kirklees were his employer. They also requested details of Mr Hanlon’s claim generally.

Much consideration was given as to Mr Hanlon’s position and the Tribunal took considerable care when making Tribunal directions. The Tribunal set out a series of questions under six categories that were to be answered by Mr Hanlon. It also included a request for disclosure of the medical records held by Mr Hanlon’s Occupational Health Adviser. This would require consent from Mr Hanlon.

Whilst it appeared that Mr Hanlon was happy to supply the information requested when he finally submitted his responses, but they did not give a proper response to the questions asked.

Despite the Tribunal giving Mr Hanlon repeated opportunities to comply, he did not. An application was made to strike out Mr Hanlon’s claim due to his failure to give consent and to his failure to give Further and Better Particulars. At a hearing of the application Mr Hanlon’s claim was struck out.

Mr Hanlon appealed the decision.

Decision

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal. The EAT was of the opinion that Mr Hanlon had been given every opportunity to attend the hearings and to provide the information requested. They were very straightforward issues. Mr Hanlon had argued that his right to a private life under Article 8 had been prejudiced. The EAT stated that the right was not absolute and a balancing exercise was required between the needs of both parties.

Comments

It had been a longstanding point that Courts and Tribunals could not order disclosure of the Claimant or Applicant’s medical records as this would breach the Access to Medical Reports Act 1988. Accordingly, Tribunals routinely order Applicants to consent to the disclosure of medical records, failing which they will stay (or strike out) the claim.