Click the case name for better results:

Applin v Race Relations Board: HL 27 Mar 1974

A couple cared for children without fee who were referred to them by a local authority. The children they cared for included coloured children. Two individuals sought to prevent the couple caring for coloured children. The question for the House of Lords was whether the attempt by the individuals to prevent the couple so doing … Continue reading Applin v Race Relations Board: HL 27 Mar 1974

Regina v Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan: CA 1975

Lord Denning MR said: ‘In recent years we have had to consider the procedure of many bodies who are required to make an investigation and form an opinion . . In all these cases it has been held that the investigating body is under a duty to act fairly: but that which fairness requires depends … Continue reading Regina v Race Relations Board, Ex parte Selvarajan: CA 1975

Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation after their primary discrimination claims. Held: The 1975 and 1976 Acts were similarly phrased and the wording in the 1995 … Continue reading Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions: HL 19 Jun 2003

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

Lalli v Spirita Housing Ltd: CA 24 Apr 2012

The claimant appealed against decisions rejecting his claims of race and disability discrimination. Judges: Ward, Elias, Jack LJJ Citations: [2012] EWCA Civ 497 Links: Bailii Statutes: Race Relations Act 1975, Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Discrimination Updated: 07 October 2022; Ref: scu.452900

The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another: EAT 17 Jan 2001

Appeal at the instance of the Lord Chancellor and his department against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that in the selection of a special adviser he contravened the provisions in respect of the first respondent, as she now is, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and in respect of the second respondent, as she now … Continue reading The Lord Chancellor and Another v Coker and Another: EAT 17 Jan 2001

Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 5 Feb 1998

The requirement that an applicant for income support must show ‘Habitual residence’ required a demonstration that in the applicant was in the UK voluntarily for settled purposes and an appreciable time should pass before income a support claim was made. (Thorpe, L.J. dissenting) Judges: Morritt, L.J. and Sir Christopher Staughton, Thorpe, L.J Citations: Times 11-Feb-1998, … Continue reading Nessa v Chief Adjudication Officer: CA 5 Feb 1998

Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

The claimant sought an order to prevent the defendant, a former employee, from misusing its confidential information said to be held by her. Her contract contained no post employment restrictions but did seek to control confidential and other information. She had obtained employment with a customer of the claimant, and was said to carry out … Continue reading Caterpillar Logistics Services (UK) Ltd v Huesca De Crean: QBD 2 Dec 2011

Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SCS 14 Jan 2011

The claimant had succeeded in her claim for constructive unfair dismissal, and of sex and race discrimation at the tribunal. The EAT reversed the discrimination findings saying that the claimant had not set them out in her ET1, and the Tribunal had wrongly extended them, giving the respondents no fair notice. She now appealed against … Continue reading Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SCS 14 Jan 2011

Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another: EAT 29 Mar 2010

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of Proof Ex-employee given unfavourable reference – Claim that terms of reference were partly on account of her having previously brought sex discrimination proceedings against employers – Claim decided by the Tribunal on basis of the ‘reverse burden of proof’ provisions of s. 63A of Sex Discrimination Act … Continue reading Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another: EAT 29 Mar 2010

Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 5 Feb 2010

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Application/claim AmendmentVICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION An originating application must be read as a whole to ascertain whether it contains a particular complaint. The Claimant who was black and dyslexic completed an ET1 without legal assistance. He ticked the Disability and the Race boxes in paragraph 6.1. In the particulars of complaint in Box … Continue reading Baker v The Commissioner of Police of The Metropolis: EAT 5 Feb 2010

Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars): CA 9 Feb 2004

The claimant taxi driver sought to assert race discrimination. The respondent argued that he had not been an employee, but an independent contractor. The Claimant owned his own vehicle and paid the respondents minicab operators pounds 75 per week for a radio and access to their company system, which allocated calls from customers to a … Continue reading Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars): CA 9 Feb 2004

Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 May 2017

The appellant female prisoner asserted that the much smaller number of probation and bail hostels provided for women prisoners when released on licence was discriminatory in leaving greater numbers of women far removed from their families. Held: A declaration was granted: ‘The provision of Approved Premises in England and Wales by the Secretary of State … Continue reading Coll, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice: SC 24 May 2017

Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency): SC 5 Apr 2017

The appellants alleged indirect race and belief discrimination in the conditions of their employment by the respondent. Essop came as lead claimant challenging the tests used for promotion. Statistics showed lower pass rates for BME candidates, but with no explanation of the connection. Naaem was an imam. He began as a part time prison chaplain, … Continue reading Essop and Others v Home Office (UK Border Agency): SC 5 Apr 2017

Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison: 1996

The 1978 Directive required consultation in the case of collective redundancies. Acts had incorrectly incorporated this requirement into English law. The error was corrected in the 1995 Regulations. Held: Anything is ‘related to’ a Community obligation so long as it is not distinct, separate or divorced from it. The 1995 Regulations were valid.Otton LJ said: … Continue reading Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ex parte Unison: 1996

Grampian Health Board v Hewage: EAT 4 Feb 2009

EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Burden of proofRACE DISCRIMINATION: Inferring discrimination Tribunal found Claimant to have suffered both sex and race discrimination in course of her employment as a consultant orthodontist. On appeal, Tribunal found to have failed to carry out a like for like comparison with chosen comparators and to have, wrongly, only considered Appellants’ submissions … Continue reading Grampian Health Board v Hewage: EAT 4 Feb 2009

Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately explained. The court could look to parliamentary reports to identify the mischief sought to be rectified, … Continue reading Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council: CA 11 Feb 2004

Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring DiscriminationThe claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay … Continue reading Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd: EAT 6 Mar 2003

Kennedy Scott Ltd v Francis: EAT 3 May 2007

EAT Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and Pre-action Requirements Has the Claimant complied with Step 1 of the statutory grievance procedure where he presents his complaint at a meeting with his line manager who notes it down, it is accepted, accurately and contemporaneously? Employment Tribunal decided that he had. Appeal, given the particular facts … Continue reading Kennedy Scott Ltd v Francis: EAT 3 May 2007

Palihakkara v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Oct 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise1. On the true construction of a compromise agreement in respect of claims arising on the termination of the contract of employment, claims arising during the relationship and arising otherwise than on termination were not compromised. The agreement did not meet the industry standard for such model agreements.2. Further the … Continue reading Palihakkara v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Oct 2006

Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through the giving of the ‘wrongful undertakings’ Held: The joined party, who had not itself … Continue reading Smithkline Beecham Plc Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd and Another v Apotex Europe Ltd and others (No 2): CA 23 May 2006

A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service: EAT 27 Jul 2005

The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary because of the upset and disturbance his continued employment would create with Asian co-workers and passengers. … Continue reading A C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service: EAT 27 Jul 2005

Marshall v Law Centres Federation: EAT 30 Jan 2002

The appellant solicitor had been employed by the respondent. They wrote to dismiss her, after failing to obtain funding. She issued proceedings on the basis that she had been victimised after giving evidence for a co-worker in other proceedings against the Federation. The tribunal, having found the lack of funding proved, considered that to be … Continue reading Marshall v Law Centres Federation: EAT 30 Jan 2002

MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School: HL 19 Jun 2003

Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation. Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the sexual orientation of the first claimant. Discrimination for sexual orientation does not come … Continue reading MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School: HL 19 Jun 2003

Saggar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 25 May 2004

Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that jurisdiction was not created by minimal presence here. Held: The provisions as to jurisdiction … Continue reading Saggar v Ministry of Defence: EAT 25 May 2004

Meade v Pugh and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2004

The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The occasion was one of qualified privilege. The claimant had to establish malice to defeat that … Continue reading Meade v Pugh and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2004

Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed. Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred … Continue reading Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton: EAT 27 Sep 2000

Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of … Continue reading Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton: EAT 27 Sep 2000

Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Nov 2001

The Lord Chancellor’s action in appointing to a special adviser’s post someone he already knew and trusted, without first advertising the post openly, was not an act of sex or race discrimination. Had they applied, they would not have been appointed because they were not personally known to the Lord Chancellor. In practice a post … Continue reading Coker and Osamor v The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chancellor’s Department: CA 22 Nov 2001

Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jun 1994

ECJ Despite the limited character of the harmonization of rules in respect of collective redundancies which Directive 75/129 was intended to bring about, national rules which, by not providing for a system for the designation of workers’ representatives in an undertaking where an employer refuses to recognize such representatives, allow an employer to frustrate the … Continue reading Commission v United Kingdom (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jun 1994

Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP: ChD 15 Jul 2011

The defendant had organised a team bonding day, including a cycling event. The claimant employee was severely injured falling from his cycle. He said that the defendant had been engligent in not providing cycling helmets. The circuit hosting company had said that helmets were available, and recommended. The claimant said there had been no mention … Continue reading Reynolds v Strutt and Parker LLP: ChD 15 Jul 2011

C Maloney v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; C Whatford; Governing Body of Hammersmith School and D A Williams: CA 7 May 1999

The claimant sought damages from the respondents. The case was listed to be heard over 25 days, but she sought an adjournment because of her own ill health. She appealed a refusal of the adjournment. The adjournment was refused on several grounds, including the great age of the action, and the need for a speedy … Continue reading C Maloney v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham; C Whatford; Governing Body of Hammersmith School and D A Williams: CA 7 May 1999

Rovenska v General Medical Council: CA 4 Dec 1996

A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical practitioner in this country for doctors with overseas qualifications, to exempt her from its requirement … Continue reading Rovenska v General Medical Council: CA 4 Dec 1996

Regina v Commission for Racial Equality (ex parte Westminster City Council): QBD 1984

The council had dismissed a black road sweeper to whose appointment the trade union objected on racial grounds. Held: The council’s motive for doing so, to avert industrial action, could not avail them. Woolf J said: ‘In this case although the employer’s motives are wholly unobjectionable, he is clearly treating the black employee less favourably … Continue reading Regina v Commission for Racial Equality (ex parte Westminster City Council): QBD 1984

Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah: CA 1980

The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’Lord Justice Brandon said: ‘I do not regard the expression ‘subjecting . . to any other detriment’ … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah: CA 1980

Savjani v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 1981

The question arose as whether the Inland Revenue were concerned with the provision of services in their activities relating to the adminsitration of the taxation system, so as to bring them within section 20 of the 1976 Act. Held: They were providing services.Templeman LJ said: ‘The Race Relations Act 1976 undoubtedly poses and is continually … Continue reading Savjani v Inland Revenue Commissioners: CA 1981

Regina v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin: HL 1983

The House was asked whether the grant of special vouchers under the special voucher scheme introduced came within section 29 of the 1975 Act. Acts performed pursuant to a government function did not come within the meaning of service. Discrimination laws did not apply to acts done on behalf of the Crown which were of … Continue reading Regina v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin: HL 1983

Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials: EAT 27 Jan 1994

The industrial tribunal had refused the applicant an extension of time. Held: The Tribunal mistook the law in holding that it could grant a review of its decision because the employee’s case had not been properly argued at the preliminary hearing as a result of her representative’s shortcomings. It would not be in the interests … Continue reading Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials: EAT 27 Jan 1994

Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission: HL 15 Dec 2005

The claimant appealed after her claim for sex discrimination had failed. She had been dismissed from her position an associate minister of the church. The court had found that it had no jurisdiction, saying that her appointment was not an employment. However the jurisdiction in sex discrimination cases was wider, extending to those who ‘contract … Continue reading Percy v Church of Scotland Board of National Mission: HL 15 Dec 2005

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court. Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from … Continue reading Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter. Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder to seek damages against advisers to … Continue reading Johnson v Gore Wood and Co: HL 14 Dec 2000

The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl: EAT 7 Jul 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – DirectThe complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination against her. The complainant appealed findings that she had lied to the tribunal on oath, and that the discrimination had been only indirect. Held: … Continue reading The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl: EAT 7 Jul 2003

Regina v Army Board of Defence Council, ex parte Anderson: QBD 1991

Members of the Armed Forces who alleged discrimination did not have access to Industrial Tribunals. The only recourse was to make a service complaint which would then be considered by the Army Board. Anderson complained of race discrimination. His service complaint had been dismissed and in his application for judicial review he challenged the procedure … Continue reading Regina v Army Board of Defence Council, ex parte Anderson: QBD 1991

Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear idea of when it would be possible for him … Continue reading Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold): CA 25 Mar 1999

James v Eastleigh Borough Council: CA 1985

The plaintiff was used to going swimming. He was 60. He complained that whereas his wife, of the same age was admitted free, he had had to pay .75p. He claimed sex discrimination. Held: Though his claim failed, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘it is not permissible for a defendant in such a case to … Continue reading James v Eastleigh Borough Council: CA 1985

Amnesty International v Ahmed: EAT 13 Aug 2009

amnesty_ahmedEAT2009 EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discriminationRACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissalClaimant, of (northern) Sudanese ethnic origin, applied for promotion to role of ‘Sudan researcher’ for Amnesty International – Not appointed because Amnesty believed that the appointment of a person of her ethnic origin would compromise … Continue reading Amnesty International v Ahmed: EAT 13 Aug 2009

Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Proving Discrimination – Two Stage Process Each appeal raised procedural issues in discrimination cases, asking where, under the new regulations, the burden of proof had shifted. Held: The new situation required a two stage process before a complaint could be upheld. First the claimant had to establish facts allowing the tribunal to conclude, in the … Continue reading Igen Ltd v Wong: CA 18 Feb 2005

Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011

The parties had a joint venture agreement which provided that any dispute was to be referred to an arbitrator from the Ismaili community. The claimant said that this method of appointment became void as a discriminatory provision under the 2003 Regulations. The High Court found the appointment to be outwith the provisions, but this was … Continue reading Jivraj v Hashwani: SC 27 Jul 2011

Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: HL 11 Oct 2001

The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the light of the discrimination claim, they were advised not to reply for fear … Continue reading Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan: HL 11 Oct 2001

Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein: HL 21 Jul 2005

Common Law – Public Nuisance – Extent The House considered the elements of the common law offence of public nuisance. One defendant faced accusations of having sent racially offensive materials to individuals. The second was accused of sending an envelope including salt to a friend as a joke. The envelope had leaked causing a terrorist … Continue reading Regina v Rimmington; Regina v Goldstein: HL 21 Jul 2005

E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another: SC 16 Dec 2009

E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history. Held: The school’s appeal failed. English law may be at fault because it made no allowance for any justification of direct … Continue reading E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another: SC 16 Dec 2009

Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004

Extension oh Human Rights Beyond Borders The appellants complained that the system set up by the respondent where Home Office officers were placed in Prague airport to pre-vet applicants for asylum from Romania were dsicriminatory in that substantially more gypsies were refused entry than others, and that it was contrary to the obligations of the … Continue reading Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others: HL 9 Dec 2004

Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SC 25 Jul 2012

The claimant had been employed as a consultant orthodontist. She resigned claiming constructive dismissal and sex and race discrimination. The EAT reversed the findings on discrimination saying that they had not been sufficiently pleaded. The Court of Session re-instated the discrimination findings and the Board now appealed. Held: The Board’s appeal failed. Although the positions … Continue reading Hewage v Grampian Health Board: SC 25 Jul 2012

James v Eastleigh Borough Council: HL 14 Jun 1990

Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination. Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and women by treating women more favourably on the … Continue reading James v Eastleigh Borough Council: HL 14 Jun 1990

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council: HL 22 May 1996

Simple interest only on rate swap damages The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could also award compound interest. … Continue reading Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council: HL 22 May 1996

Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd: EAT 17 Dec 2010

EAT HARASSMENT – Conduct Where an employee worked in an environment in which her dignity was violated, or which became intimidatory, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive as a result of actions of others whom her employer did not control, in what circumstances is that employer liable to her for damages for discrimination or harassment on … Continue reading Conteh v Parking Partners Ltd: EAT 17 Dec 2010

Science Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias: HL 1 Nov 1979

Recent statutes had given redress to anyone suffering unlawful discrimination on account of race sex or trade union activities. An employee sought discovery of documents from his employer which might reveal such discrimination. Held: The court ought not to order breach of properly given confidences unless it is necessary in the interests of justice. Lord … Continue reading Science Research Council v Nasse; BL Cars Ltd (formerly Leyland Cars) v Voias: HL 1 Nov 1979

E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another: CA 25 Jun 2009

E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested that the policy ‘elides the grounds of an act with its motive, whereas what the legislation … Continue reading E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another: CA 25 Jun 2009

AC v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, Equality and Human Rights Commissions intervening: Admn 25 May 2010

The claimant, a male to female transsexual, challenged a decision by the respondent to refuse breast augmentation treatment. The Trust had a policy ‘GRS is a Low Priority treatment due to the limited evidence of clinical effectiveness and is not routinely funded.’ Held: The claim for judicial review failed. There was no general medical concensus … Continue reading AC v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust, Equality and Human Rights Commissions intervening: Admn 25 May 2010