Miles v Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (2023)

EAT upholds ET decision to reject detriment / dismissal claims relating to health & safety as the appellant "did not hold a reasonable belief in a serious and imminent danger to himself for the purposes of ss 44(1)(d) and 100(1)(d) ERA." The EAT also upheld ET decisions to reject 44(1)(c) and 100(1(c) ERA claims on account of the fact that the appellant "worked at a place for which there was a health and safety representative or committee (although not based at the Pontefract office)." Nevertheless, the EAT did rule that there had been an error in law by the ET in rejecting a disability discrimination claim on the basis of a finding that the appellant's refusal to return to work stemmed from an “unreasonable belief” as opposed to an impairment arising out the appellants chronic kidney disease. The ET had found that the appellant "did reasonably believe there were circumstances connected with his work which were harmful or potentially harmful to health or safety." Accordingly, the EAT remitted the case back to the ET to address that issue.