The employee had been selected for redundancy. He claimed both race and disability discrimination. He appealed a rejection of race discrimination claim. He said that the Meek case required the decision to deal with any significant of conflict of evidence, and this the tribunal had not done. The respondent said this need not be fatal to the decision. Though no reference had been made to the replies to the questionnaire, or to differences and changes in the replies given, the tribunal had been quite ready to criticise the respondents, and the evidence had explored the same area in full. The omission made no substantial difference.
Judges:
Miss Recorder Slade QC
Citations:
[2001] UKEAT 244 – 00 – 0803
Links:
Statutes:
Race Relations Act 1976 65(2)(b)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police v Kellaway 2000
. .
Cited – Meek v City of Birmingham District Council CA 18-Feb-1987
Employment Tribunals to Provide Sufficient Reasons
Tribunals, when giving their decisions, are required to do no more than to make clear their findings of fact and to answer any question of law raised.
Bingham LJ said: ‘It has on a number of occasions been made plain that the decision of an . .
See Also – Ashraf v Birkett EAT 14-Jan-2000
. .
See Also – Ashraf v Francis W Birkett and Sons Ltd EAT 23-May-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.160146
