EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Perversity
RACE DISCRIMINATION: Direct / Indirect
The appeal of an unsuccessful Claimant on perversity grounds against the dismissal of his claims for discrimination on the grounds of race and victimisation failed on the facts.
The First Respondent, an Education Authority was entitled to decline to give a substantive answer to a letter seeking advice and assistance, after the commencement of proceedings, where the reason for the First Respondent’s conduct was not that proceedings had been commenced but that the proceedings remained on foot and the First Respondent reasonably considered it might be prejudiced in the proceedings by giving a substantive reply and offering further assistance; Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] IRLR 830 applied.
The cases of Yeboah v Crofton [2002] IRLR 634 and Meek v City of Birmingham [1987] IRLR 250 are well known to anyone who sits in the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In future copies of those cases should not be supplied to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. It is perfectly possible for advocates to refer to the principle of those cases, without referring to the report. A quotation of the appropriate citation in a skeleton argument will generally suffice and it will only be in rare cases that it is necessary for a copy of the entire case to be provided.
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0369 – 08 – 0701
Links:
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 13 August 2022; Ref: scu.392833
