Search Results for: Race Relations Act 1976 1 2(1)

Click the case name for better results:

Ministry of Defence v Kemeh: EAT 11 Mar 2013

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS- Agency relationshipsRACE DISCRIMINATIONDirectInjury to feelingsAccepted, in line with EAT authority, that common law agency principles apply to Race Relations Act s32(1). On that basis employer appeal against agency finding upheld and set aside.Injury to feelings award manifestly excessive and wrong in principle (see Vento). Award reduced from andpound;12,000 to andpound;6,000. Judges: Peter … Continue reading Ministry of Defence v Kemeh: EAT 11 Mar 2013

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport; Swiggs and London Regional Transport v Nagarajan: CA 7 Nov 1997

On a true construction of section 2(1), a person alleged to have been victimised had to establish that the alleged discriminator, in treating him less favourably than another, had a motive which was consciously connected with the race relations legislation. Citations: [1997] EWCA Civ 2671, [1998] IRLR 73 Statutes: Race Relations Act 1976 2(1) Jurisdiction: … Continue reading Nagarajan v London Regional Transport; Swiggs and London Regional Transport v Nagarajan: CA 7 Nov 1997

Dr Adoko v Law Society: CA 7 Mar 1997

The appellant had complained to the Employment Tribunal alleging race discrimination by the Respondent. That claim had failed, and several appeals had also failed. The claim alleged indirect discrimination, and the respondent admitted unwitting indirect discrimination, and accordingly no damages were payable. Because of his manner of conduct of the proceedings, including disclosure of matters … Continue reading Dr Adoko v Law Society: CA 7 Mar 1997

Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the Medical Act 1983 was refused by the GMC. He then applied to the Review Board for Overseas Qualified … Continue reading Khan v General Medical Council: CA 11 Apr 1994

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

Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones: CA 11 Dec 1996

An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of discrimination.Waite LJ said: ‘a statute is to be construed according to its legislative purpose, with due regard … Continue reading Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones: CA 11 Dec 1996

Irving and Irving v Post Office: CA 1987

The defendant’s employee disliked his neighbours – the plaintiffs. Whilst working in the sorting office, he wrote racially abusive materials on letters addressed to them. The plaintiffs appealed a finding that the defendant was not liable because the acts were not carried out as part of the employee’s work. Held: The test was whether the … Continue reading Irving and Irving v Post Office: CA 1987

Tower Boot Company Ltd v Jones: EAT 27 Mar 1995

The company appealed against a finding of race discrimination. Held: As a matter of law the concept of vicarious liability provided for in Section 41(1) of the Act, identical to that under Section 32(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. Citations: [1995] UKEAT 56 – 94 – 2703, [1995] IRLR 529 Links: Bailii Statutes: Race … Continue reading Tower Boot Company Ltd v Jones: EAT 27 Mar 1995

Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon: CA 18 Dec 2001

The claimant’s claim for race discrimination had been dismissed on appeal by the EAT. He now appealed to restore the judgement of the employment tribunal. He had begun an action against his employer, and then unsuccessfully applied for employment with the respondent. He later discovered that there had been conversations between the two employers. Held: … Continue reading Scott v London Borough of Hillingdon: CA 18 Dec 2001

Jasbeer Rooproy v M Rollins-Elliott, Manor House Hospitals Ltd: EAT 7 Aug 2001

The Applicant had worked for the respondents. The respondents were closing down the nursing home, and all staff were being made redundant and were to be given open references. The applicant’s claim for race discrimination had been heard but no decision given. The first respondent gave a reference but referred to the outstanding proceedings. The … Continue reading Jasbeer Rooproy v M Rollins-Elliott, Manor House Hospitals Ltd: EAT 7 Aug 2001

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

Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd: EAT 10 Nov 1999

An assault on a company sponsored day out could be within the course of employment. Exclusion by the employer of consideration that the assault might be racially motivated, was itself race-specific and discriminatory. Citations: Gazette 10-Nov-1999, (1999) IRLR 683 Statutes: Race Relations Act 1976 32(1) Citing: Appealed to – Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd … Continue reading Sidhu v Aerospace Composite Technology Ltd: EAT 10 Nov 1999

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy. Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law because it is the antithesis of fairness. It brings the law … Continue reading Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza: HL 21 Jun 2004

Depner v General Medical Council: EAT 14 Feb 2013

depner_gmcEAT2013 EAT Race Discrimination : Discrimination By Other Bodies – The Employment Judge did not err in holding that the Employment Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear a doctor’s claims of discrimination and victimisation made under the Race Relations Act 1976. The claims were of her suspension from registration and imposition of immediate suspension … Continue reading Depner v General Medical Council: EAT 14 Feb 2013

Swiggs and others v Nagarajan: HL 15 Jul 1999

Bias may not be intentional The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim of victimisation contrary to section 2(1) of the 1976 Act, finding … Continue reading Swiggs and others v Nagarajan: HL 15 Jul 1999

Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd: CA 26 Feb 1988

An Asian member of the respondent association of taxi cab operators secretly recorded conversations with other members to gather evidence for a claim under the Act. He was expelled from the association for this conduct. He alleged race discrimination and victimisation. Held: The issue was whether the act was an act of discrimination. The association … Continue reading Aziz v Trinity Street Taxis Ltd: CA 26 Feb 1988

Uddin v General Medical Council and Others: EAT 14 Feb 2013

EAT Race Discrimination : DirectDetrimentDiscrimination by other bodiesAt a pre-hearing review an Employment Judge held that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine a doctor’s claims of race discrimination and harassment. She held that the Medical Act 1983 and judicial review provided ‘an appeal or proceedings in the nature of an appeal’ from such … Continue reading Uddin v General Medical Council and Others: EAT 14 Feb 2013

Lisk-Carew v Birmingham City Council Dr S Sharp: CA 25 Apr 2004

The claimant’s complaints of unfair dismissal and race discrimination had been dismissed, but a claim of victimisation had succeeded. Held: There was no inconsistency in the findings. In such a case, damages should be limited to the sum for injured feelings (in this case andpound;5,000). Judges: Kennedy, May, Hooper LJJ Citations: Times 07-Jun-2004, Gazette 20-May-2004 … Continue reading Lisk-Carew v Birmingham City Council Dr S Sharp: CA 25 Apr 2004

Hooper v Sherborne School: EAT 9 Sep 2009

EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATIONPRACTICE AND PROCEDURENew evidence on appealCostsThe Employment Tribunal was right to reject the Claimant’s victimisation claim. It disbelieved her allegation that she saw the solicitor representing her previous employer in her first unsuccessful race discrimination visit her current employer.The Employment Tribunal did not err when it awarded andpound;7000 costs against her, taking into … Continue reading Hooper v Sherborne School: EAT 9 Sep 2009

Palmer v Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Ltd: EAT 6 Jul 2006

EAT The claimant alleged that she had been victimised contrary to the provisions of s.2(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. The tribunal were satisfied that the claimant had carried out a protected act and that she had been treated less favourably than an appropriate comparator. The tribunal were of the view that the respondents … Continue reading Palmer v Dunedin Canmore Housing Association Ltd: EAT 6 Jul 2006

Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006

In each case the local authority sought to recover possession of its own land. In the Lambeth case, they asserted this right as against an overstaying former tenant, and in the Leeds case as against gypsies. In each case the occupiers said that the recovery of possession interfered with their right respect for their family … Continue reading Kay and Another v London Borough of Lambeth and others; Leeds City Council v Price and others and others: HL 8 Mar 2006