EAT Race Discrimination : Direct – RACE DISCRIMINATION – Inferring discrimination – HARASSMENT – VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Other forms of victimisation – The Appellant appealed against (1) a Substantive Decision of the Employment Tribunal (‘ET’) dismissing his claims for discrimination and victimisation on the grounds of race, and harassment on the grounds of religion and belief, (2) a Decision refusing to reconsider the Substantive Decision, and (3) a Decision ordering him to pay costs.
The appeals against the Substantive Decision and the Reconsideration Decision were dismissed. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the ET had correctly directed themselves in law on the substantive claims. It also rejected an argument that the ET had failed to make reasonable adjustments during the hearing for the Appellant.
It further held that, whether or not the ET had erred in refusing to reconsider its Substantive Decision, the appeal against that decision having been dismissed, it was not in the interests of justice for the ET to reconsider that decision.
The appeal against the Costs Decision was allowed, on the grounds that the ET had given inadequate reasons for ordering the Appellant to pay costs. The costs application was remitted to the ET for reconsideration.
Laing DBE J
 UKEAT 0417 – 14 – 0708
England and Wales
See Also – Bham v 2Gether NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire EAT 12-Sep-2014
EAT Practice and Procedure : Striking-Out/Dismissal – Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity
The Employment Judge made a determination of time limit issues and struck out Further and Better . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551062