Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd [1999] IRLR 158
Medical evidence and its effect on compensation in personal injury cases is often considered by judges in the county court. However, until recently, it has not been something the Employment Tribunal has had to bother itself with too often.
The situation has changed with the advent of the Disability Discrimination Act. Buxton v Equinox Design Ltd has highlighted the need for more carefully structured remedies hearings than we are used to seeing in Tribunal cases.
Mr Buxton, a craftsman working on exhibitions, was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis in 1994. At first he was put on light duties, then placed on sick leave following an incident with a bandsaw. Later, his employers obtained information on Mr Buxton's condition from their Employment Medical Advisory Service (EMAS). The only predictions were that his condition was deteriorating slowly, that he would not return to normal and that his future should be considered. No assessment of risk was carried out; the employers' response was to meet Mr Buxton and dismiss him.
An employment tribunal found Mr Buxton's dismissal to be unfair and awarded £7,627.50 compensation to include £500 for injury to feelings. The loss was limited to one year from the date of the EMAS' letter, although no oral evidence was heard from the doctor. Mr Buxton appealed on grounds that £500 was far too low for the injury to his feelings and the remainder should not have been limited to loss for one year.
The EAT, allowing the appeal in part, referred the matter back to the employment tribunal for a remedies hearing stating that the case should involve "careful pre-preparation under the management of the tribunal". If this could not be agreed, a medical expert should be called to give oral evidence. The tribunal should not decide to limit compensation to one year without a medical prognosis.