Click the case name for better results:

Grimshaw v Griffin Signs Ltd and others: EAT 25 Nov 2008

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Continuing act JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Extension of time: just and equitable There was no error of law or perversity in the judgment of the Employment Tribunal that the dismissal of Mr Grimshaw was not part of a continuing act of discrimination and that, apart from that relating to dismissal, his complaints of discrimination … Continue reading Grimshaw v Griffin Signs Ltd and others: EAT 25 Nov 2008

Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 26 Apr 2004

The claimants sought a declaration that part of the Regulations were invalid, and an infringement of their human rights. The Regulations sought to exempt church schools from an obligation not to discriminate against homosexual teachers. Held: The Regulation was within the scope of the Directive. Though a member state had some freedom in implementing a … Continue reading Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Admn 26 Apr 2004

Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and Others: EAT 11 Jan 2011

lisboa_realpubsEAT11 EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION Whether Respondent’s policy of encouraging a wider clientele at a formerly gay pub involved less favourable treatment of gay customers causing the Claimant to resign in circumstances amounting to discriminatory constructive (and wrongful) dismissal, applying principles in Showboat, approved in Wethersfield v Sargent.Employment Tribunal fell into error in focussing on … Continue reading Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and Others: EAT 11 Jan 2011

HM Land Registry v Grant: EAT 15 Apr 2010

hmlr_grantEAT10 EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISMHARASSMENT – ConductPRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-BarkeAn Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 complaints of discrimination, and 5 out of 12 of unlawful harassment, were made out. None of the acts complained of, save possibly one, was obviously and intrinsically discriminatory. Each finding relied on the … Continue reading HM Land Registry v Grant: EAT 15 Apr 2010

Grant v HM Land Registry: CA 1 Jul 2011

The appellant had succeeded in his claim for sex discrimination arising from his orientation, but the EAT had reversed the decision. He now appealed against the EAT decision. Although he had revealed his sexuality in one post, he had chosen to delay this when moved to a different office, but it had nevertheless been revealed. … Continue reading Grant v HM Land Registry: CA 1 Jul 2011

Johns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another: Admn 28 Feb 2011

The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be homosexual. A declaration was sought as to the legality of the proposed decision. Held: A … Continue reading Johns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another: Admn 28 Feb 2011

Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009

The appellant was employed as a registrar. She refused to preside at same sex partnership ceremonies, saying that they conflicted with her Christian beliefs. Held: The council’s decision had clearly disadvantaged the claimant, and the question was whether its policies were a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim. They were. The overarching policy was … Continue reading Ladele v London Borough of Islington: CA 15 Dec 2009

Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy: CA 10 Feb 2012

The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they were practising Christians and viewed the guest house as their home, and that … Continue reading Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy: CA 10 Feb 2012

Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jan 2013

Eweida_ukECHR2013 The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants had variously relied upon their Christian faith to justify refusal to … Continue reading Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jan 2013

Acts

1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts