Category: Discrimination

Ingrid Rinner-Kuehn v Fww Spezial-Gebaudereinigung Gmbh and Co. Kg: ECJ 13 Jul 1989

The Court heard a complaint about a German statute providing that an employer need not pay sick pay to a part-time worker. In at least seven member states part-time workers were predominantly women (the percentages ranging from 89% in the Federal Republic to 62% in Italy; only in Denmark, at 54%, was there anything close to parity). There was such a striking disparity between men and women that the question referred to the Court of Justice assumed that the proportion of women adversely affected was considerably greater than that of men, and the Court of Justice was concerned only with the issue of objective justification. Nine times as many women as men were disadvantaged, and no one was going to waste time in suggesting that the entire national workforce contained nine times as many women as men.
Europa Article 119 of the Treaty precludes national legislation which permits employers to exclude employees whose normal working hours do not exceed 10 hours a week or 45 hours a month from the continued payment of wages in the event of illness, if that measure affects a far greater number of women than men, unless the Member State shows that the legislation concerned is justified by objective factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, which concern one of the essential aims of its social policy.

Citations:

C-171/88, R-171/88, [1989] EUECJ R-171/88, [1989] ECR 2743

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) CA 21-Dec-2004
The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker’s child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory.
Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and others HL 3-May-2006
The claimant sought to establish that as a male employee, he had suffered sex discrimination in that he lost rights to redundancy pay after the age of retirement where a woman might not.
Held: The appeal was dismised. There were very few . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.215719

Thacker, and Larthwell v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Cambridge Regional College: EAT 30 Mar 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0039/05, [2005] UKEAT 0039 – 05 – 3003, UKEAT/0040/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Securicor Omega Express Ltd v GMB (A Trade Union) EAT 7-Apr-2003
EAT The company decided to close two branches and make redundancies. They presented the closure itself as a fait accompli to the union representatives. The Tribunal found that this involved a failure to consult . .

Cited by:

See Also – Thacker and Larthwell v Secretary of State for Education and Skills Cambridge Regional College EAT 28-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Health v Rance EAT 4-May-2007
EAT Equal Pay Act – Part time pensions
Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke
The EAT exercised its discretion to allow a point conceded at the Employment Tribunal to be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.225218

Brocklebank v Silveira: EAT 11 Jan 2006

EAT Sex Discrimination: Pregnancy and Discrimination
Sex Discrimination by employment agency contrary to s15(1)(b) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in not making initial risk assessment in relation to a pregnant prospective employee.
Good decision by Employment Tribunal, on liability and quantum. No error of law disclosed in Notice of Appeal or Skeleton by manager of employment agency (who did not attend the preliminary hearing and) and whom the Tribunal had found liable.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

[2006] UKEAT 0571 – 05 – 1101

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 15(1)(b)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240203

Caspersz v Ministry of Defence: EAT 3 Feb 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction/Reasons/Burns-Barke – Sex Discrimination – Vicarious liability. ET held entitled to find s.41(3) SDA defence made out where they found that the employer had a good policy, which was not just paid lip service to but was observed, so that the employer had taken such reasonably practicable steps to prevent sexual comments being made by a manager to his junior.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Langstaff

Citations:

UKEAT/0599/05, [2006] UKEAT 0599 – 05 – 0302

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240229

Serco Ltd T/A Education Bradford and others v Quarshie: EAT 17 Jan 2006

EAT Unlawful Deduction From Wages and Race Discrimination: Post-Employment
The Employment Tribunal erred in construing ‘full salary’ payable on the suspension of the Claimant as fettering the employee’s right to end a short term temporary placement and restore him to his substantive grade which represented his ‘full salary’.
The Employment Tribunal was directed on remission of one ground of appeal to reconsider its finding of race discrimination in the light of there being no breach of contract.
There was no error in the Employment Tribunal’s finding of direct race discrimination under Race Relations Act 1976 s l(2) while dismissing his claim of victimisation under s2 arising out of the same facts. This was as the Employment Tribunal found the result of the burden of proof shifting for race discrimination but not for victimisation claims, and the different grounds upon which liability would be founded i.e. race discrimination and having made an allegation of race discrimination respectively. Madden [2005] IRLR 46 CA applied.
Although the Claimant’s representative did not respond one by one to the criticism of lack of reasons, any was insufficient to undermine the discharge of the Employment Tribunal’s duty to give reasons.
EAT Race Discrimination – Post Employment.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0466/05/SM, [2006] UKEAT 0466 – 05 – 1701

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238808

M Hawes v Marconi Mobile: EAT 7 Feb 2006

EAT Contract of Employment: Damages for Breach of Contract
In assessing how much was due to the employee for breach of contract the ET had to evaluate what bonus the employee would have received absent the breach. That evaluation required a decision as to what the employee’s target would have been – which itself depended on the viability of a large projects which the employees said was non – viable and should not have been included in the targets. The ET failed to make findings in the central issue of viability and gave inadequate reasons for their decision as to target.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Burke QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0674/05, [2006] UKEAT 0674 – 05 – 0702

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238943

Dr Vivienne Jean Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust: EAT 31 Jan 2006

EAT Race Discrimination
The Employment Tribunal Chairman divided the 17 allegations of race discrimination formulated by counsel into 4 periods. These periods were derived from that document. The finding that periods 1 and 2 could not be bolted to period 3 was a finding of fact: Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434. No error of law. The Employment Tribunal Chairman did not err in applying what on analysis was the Hendricks v Commissioner for the Police Metropolis [2003] IRLR 96 test as to a continuing act. It was unnecessary to decide whether Robertson on this point was decided without reference to binding authority i.e. Hendricks but the Malingios test was not passed.

Judges:

Mcmullen QC J

Citations:

UKEAT/0651/05, [2006] UKEAT 0651 – 05 – 3101

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lyfar v Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals Trust CA 14-Nov-2006
The claimant appealed against rejection of her claim for race discrimination as having been made out of time. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238799

Sandra Williams v Home Office: CA 27 Jul 2005

Judges:

Auld LJ, Tuckey LJ, Maurice Kay LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1648

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238602

Manson v Ministry of Defence: CA 4 Nov 2005

Judges:

Keen LJ, Scott Baker LJ, Richards LJ

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1678, [2006] ICR 355

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Manson v Ministry of Defence EAT 30-Oct-2002
. .
Appeal from – Manson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Ministry of Defence Admn 17-Feb-2005
. .

Cited by:

Cited – T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd. and Another v Office of Communications CA 12-Dec-2008
The claimant telecoms companies objected to a proposed scheme for future licensing of available spectrum. The scheme anticipated a bias in favour of auctioniung such content. It was not agreed whether any challenge to the decision should be by way . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238615

Carmen Sarkatzis Herrero v Instituto Madrileno de la Salud (Imsalud): ECJ 16 Feb 2006

ECJ Directive 76/207/EEC – Equal treatment for men and women – Maternity leave – Access to the career of official – Temporary servant on maternity leave who gains a permanent post after taking part in a competition – Calculation of seniority.

Citations:

C-294/04, [2006] EUECJ C-294/04

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238548

Barnes v The Commissioner of the Metropolis Independent Police Complaints Commission: EAT 14 Nov 2005

EAT Race Discrimination: Out of Time
The Tribunal’s approach to the question whether it was just and equitable to consider the Appellant’s complaint out of time was not contrary to the basis agreed at the prior Case Management Discussion.
The Tribunal’s conclusions, read with the submissions which underlay them, did not err in law and were not mutually inconsistent.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0474/05, [2005] UKEAT 0474 – 05 – 1411

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238259

Royal Liverpool Children’s NHS Trust v Dunsby: EAT 1 Dec 2005

EAT Disability Discrimination: Justification and Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal – Tribunal erred in law in its approach to justification (DDA) and s98(4).

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0426/05, [2005] UKEAT 0426 – 05 – 0112

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238279

Hamill v Islington: EAT 24 Nov 2005

EAT Race Discrimination and Practice and Procedure
Full hearing. Employment Tribunal failed to deal with one aspect of Claimant’s victimisation claim. Remitted to same Employment Tribunal (Sinclair Roche considered) for determination of specific issue.

Judges:

Per Clark HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0409 – 05 – 2411

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238261

Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi: EAT 28 Feb 2019

RACE DISCRIMINATION – Injury to feelings
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Other losses
Race discrimination – injury to feelings and other (non-pecuniary) losses
The Claimant had pursued ET proceedings, complaining of various acts of harassment because of race in respect of six incidents during her employment and from the fact and manner of her dismissal. Finding that the claim in respect of matters arising during the course of the Claimant’s employment had been brought out of time, the ET upheld the Claimant’s complaint of racial harassment in respect of her dismissal. At the subsequent Remedies Hearing, the ET found that the Claimant’s injury to feelings fell to be considered within the middle of the middle Vento band and made an award of pounds 16,000 under this head. It separately considered her claim for aggravated damages, finding that the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal, its subsequent conduct of the ET litigation (its initial maintenance of the lie that she had been dismissed because of redundancy; its failure to respond to disclosure requests; its late alteration of its case to allege dismissal because of suspected theft) and its failure to apologise, had aggravated her injury to feelings, warranting an award of pounds 5,000 under this head. Having found that the Claimant had suffered medical depression for three months, the ET also made an award for personal injury in the sum of pounds 3,000. Standing back to consider the overall award made for non-pecuniary damages, the ET was satisfied that this was an appropriate sum. It then went on to make an uplift of 25% in respect of the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code given its failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal.
The Respondent appealed, contending the awards made were manifestly excessive, the personal injury award failed to take into account the Claimant’s other complaints of discrimination (for which the Respondent had not been found liable) and the ET had double-counted the factors taken into account and/or had taken into account irrelevant factors.
Held: allowing the appeal in part
Injury to feelings
The fact that the ET’s finding of unlawful discrimination related to an isolated event – the Claimant’s dismissal – did not mean it was required to assess the award for injury to feelings as falling within the lowest Vento bracket: the question was what effect had the discriminatory act had on the Claimant? On the ET’s findings of fact in this case, it had permissibly concluded that this was a serious matter (something acknowledged by the Respondent) that gave rise to an injury to feelings award falling within the middle of the middle Vento bracket. Moreover, in reaching that decision, the ET had been careful not to double-count matters that it subsequently considered relevant to the question of aggravated damages, personal injury or any ACAS uplift. It had, further, not taken into account irrelevant factors when it referred to the Claimant’s grievance, her notification to ACAS or the pursuit of her ET proceedings; these were potentially relevant matters to which the ET was entitled to refer when testing whether the Claimant had genuinely been aggrieved by the Respondent’s discriminatory conduct. There was, therefore, no proper basis on which the EAT could interfere with the award made.
Aggravated damages
As for the aggravated damages award, other than a question as to whether this double-counted the Respondent’s failure to respond to the grievance/appeal (given the ET’s subsequent award of a 25% ACAS uplift), the ET’s reasoning made clear that it had been careful to have regard only to matters occurring after the dismissal, which had not been taken into account in assessing the initial injury to feelings suffered by the Claimant or her personal injury.
Personal injury
Similarly, when considering the claim in respect of personal injury, the ET had been astute not to allow double-recovery for factors already taken into account under other heads. As for the evidence supporting its award in this regard, the ET had noted that there was no basis for thinking that the other matters of which the Claimant had complained (for which the Respondent had not been held liable) had caused her to suffer depression; in the circumstances it had not erred in law in failing to apportion some element of the three-month period of medical depression to some other, earlier cause.
Totality
Standing back and considering the totality of the sums awarded, given the particular facts of this case (where the Claimant had, out of the blue, been summarily dismissed from a job in a career in which she had invested much in terms of time and money, for which she had worked hard and which she reasonably considered to be a long-term employment; where the reason for the dismissal had been an obvious lie; where the Claimant had faced managerial intimidation when she sought to contest the reason given for her dismissal), it could not be said that the award made was manifestly excessive such as to allow the EAT to interfere.
Double-counting
The only point on which a question of double-counting arose related to the regard given to the Respondent’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s grievance/appeal. Having already considered this relevant to the award for aggravated damages, the ET subsequently returned to the point when deciding whether it was appropriate to make an uplift of 25% for the Respondent’s breach of the ACAS Code. Although the Respondent had not appealed against the ACAS uplift, it had questioned the aggravated damages award in this respect. Given that the ET decided to make an ACAS uplift in respect of the grievance/appeal, the question whether this gave rise to double-recovery in relation to the aggravated damages award was a relevant matter that ought properly to have been considered by the ET. As the ET had failed to have regard to this issue, the appeal would be allowed to this limited extent.
The parties having consented to the EAT itself determining the question thus identified, further submissions were heard as to whether the ET’s award for aggravated damages should be reduced. Although, as the Claimant contended, it might be considered that the other matters taken into account under this head justified the sum awarded, it was apparent that the ET had also had regard to the failure to respond to the grievance/appeal and, as such, it was appropriate to reduce the award in this respect to avoid double-counting. Of the various factors that had led to the aggravated damages award, however, this was a relatively minor matter and the award would be reduced only by the sum of pounds 1,000.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0267 – 18 – 2802

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637640

Akhigbe v Berkeley Homes (Urban Renaissance) Ltd: EAT 26 Feb 2019

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Whistleblowing
An employment judge had not erred in law by deciding that the appellant’s allegation that the respondent employer had subjected the appellant to a detriment by persistently refusing to disclose documents pursuant to a ‘subject access request’ under the then Data Protection Act 1998 had no reasonable prospect of success and should be struck out without a trial.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0005 – 18 – 2602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.637639

J Shepherd and others v North Yorkshire County Council: EAT 7 Dec 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation – The Claimants’ claim that the Respondent aided, abetted, counselled and procured trade unions to commit breaches of section 12 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is unsustainable, both in the form originally pleaded and in the proposed re-formulation put before the Appeal Tribunal. Accordingly, albeit for reasons different to those of the Tribunal, the appeal is dismissed.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0526/05, [2005] UKEAT 0526 – 05 – 2112

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237661

Craddock v Cornwall County Council and others: EAT 19 Dec 2005

EAT Sexual Discrimination: Direct and Unfair Dismissal: Reason for Dismissal
Justification of discrimination condition.
Constructive Dismissal: Ambit of constructive dismissal amounting to a breach of mutual trust and confidence.

Judges:

Pugsley J

Citations:

0367/05, [2005] UKEAT 0367 – 05 – 1912

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236847

Assoukou v Select Services Partners Ltd and others: EAT 30 Nov 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination – Injury to feelings. Appeal against making of no award by Employment Tribunal of compensation for injury to feelings on claim for sex discrimination, where, on the Employment Tribunal’s findings, the Claimant in any event was not lawfully entitled to work: no ground to disturb finding of Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0585/05, [2005] UKEAT 0585 – 05 – 3011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236836

Wilson v Wychavon District Council and Another: Admn 20 Dec 2005

The claimant complained that the law which protected an occupier of a dwelling house from a temporary stop notice did not apply to those living in caravans, and that this was discriminatory.
Held: The claim failed. ‘usually a change of use of a building to a dwelling will cause less immediate environmental damage than the stationing of a residential caravan, is correct. In those circumstances the ‘bright line’ rule in relation to dwellings only is in my view proportionate and a regime such as that for temporary stop notices is not required by considerations of proportionality. ‘ The section was not incompatible.

Judges:

Crane J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 2970 (Admin), Times 18-Jan-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 183(4), Human Rights Act 1998, Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 52, Town and Country (Temporary Stop Notice) (England) Regulations 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Clarke v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council CA 2002
The court referred to ‘the very difficult question of how potential family and cultural rights of gypsy and Romany populations interact with and are affected by the municipal planning laws of this country’, . .
Cited – Runnymede Borough Council v Smith 1986
The section provided protection even for caravans which had come on to the site with knowledge of the stop notice, and an injunction was refused on these grounds. . .
Cited – Chapman v United Kingdom; similar ECHR 18-Jan-2001
The question arose as to the refusal of planning permission and the service of an enforcement notice against Mrs Chapman who wished to place her caravan on a plot of land in the Green Belt. The refusal of planning permission and the enforcement . .
Cited – Westminster City Council and Another v Morris; Regina (Badu) v Lambeth London Borough Council CA 14-Oct-2005
The claimant sought housing assistance. She had a child. She was subject to immigration control. She complained that when considering her application, the Act required the authority to disregard her responsibiltes to her children.
Held: The . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom (2) ECHR 6-Oct-2005
(Grand Chamber) The applicant said that whilst a prisoner he had been banned from voting. The UK operated with minimal exceptions, a blanket ban on prisoners voting.
Held: Voting is a right not a privilege. It was a right central in a . .
Cited – Carson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
Cited – Coates and others v South Buckinghamshire District Council CA 22-Oct-2004
The local authority had required the applicants to remove their mobile homes from land. They complained that the judge had failed properly to explain how he had reached his decision as to the proportionality of the pressing social need, and the . .
Cited – Hirst v United Kingdom ECHR 24-Jul-2001
The applicant asserted that the delays in the reviews, undertaken by the Parole Board, of his continued detention as a discretionary life prisoner, was a breach of his right to a speedy decision. The delays were between 21 and 24 months. Such delays . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Connors v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-May-2004
The applicant gypsies had initially been permitted to locate their caravan on a piece of land owned by a local authority, but their right of occupation was brought to an end because the local authority considered that they were committing a . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Michalak v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 6-Mar-2002
The appellant had occupied for a long time a room in a house let by the authority. After the death of the tenant, the appellant sought, but was refused, a statutory tenancy. He claimed to be a member of the tenant’s family, and that the list of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wilson, Regina (on the Application of) v Wychavon District Council and Another CA 6-Feb-2007
The claimants said that an enforcement notice issued against them under a law which would prevent such a notice against the use of a building as a dwelling, but not against use of a caravan as a dwelling, discriminated against them as gypsies.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Planning, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236657

Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm ) v Heard, Fellows: EAT 21 Nov 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure: Disclosure, Costs and Disposal of Appeal
Appeal against interlocutory orders by ET Chairman debarring reliance on some disclosed documents and ordering costs against the Appellant: and restoration of earlier adjourned application for Review of the decision by the EAT, when allowing the original appeal, to remit the appeal to the same Tribunal. Appeal allowed in respect of debarring order and costs: order was flawed as being in substitution for an earlier order which should plainly not have been granted and as made without consideration of the correct legal approach to prejudice caused by late disclosure, in terms of effect on a fair trial and prejudice caused by debarring the evidence: costs order made in respect of the hearing could not be justified on grounds of unreasonable conduct by the Appellant, but was due to the need to revoke the earlier inappropriate order.
On the restored application for Review, order reviewed so as to remit the appeal to a freshly-constituted Tribunal, on the grounds that the Sinclair Roche requirements for the exceptional step of remitting to the same Tribunal were not, in the light of subsequent events, now satisfied.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President)

Citations:

UKEAT/0637/05, [2005] UKEAT 0637 – 05 – 2111

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another EAT 22-Jul-2004
EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET.
(i) ET must, if . .
See Also – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Heard, Fellows EAT 12-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Employment Tribunal Chairman, after a Case Management and Directions Hearing to delineate issues and set timetable for May hearing, delayed for three months before delivering . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236495

Home Office v Saunders: EAT 7 Nov 2005

EAT Sex Discrimination
The Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the hypothetical comparator for a female prison officer conducting a rub-down search of a male prisoner was a male prison officer conducting a rub-down search of a female prisoner despite the fact that a male prison officer was not permitted to carry out such a search.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0260 – 05 – 0711

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235820

Bvunzai v Glasgow City Council: SCS 1 Dec 2005

Judges:

Lord Hamilton And Lord Kingarth And Lord Reed

Citations:

[2005] ScotCS CSIH – 85

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Cited – Glasgow City Council v C Bvunzai EAT 18-Oct-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235839

1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton: EAT 2 Dec 2003

The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract protection within the Act.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/775/03, Times 14-Apr-2004, [2003] UKEAT 0775 – 03 – 0212

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Cited – Jones v Secretary of State for Social Services; Jones v Hudson HL 1972
Unsatisfactory decisions of the highest court could cause uncertainty because lower courts tend to distinguish them on inadequate grounds.
One possible source of law is ‘informed professional opinion’. The word ‘final’ can denote different . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – General Medical Council v H Cox EAT 22-Mar-2002
Miss Cox claimed that the Council had not made a proper adjustment so as to allow her to work for them despite her disability. The Council asserted as a preliminary point that they were not a trade organisation within the sections, and so were not . .
Appealed to – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton CA 15-Jul-2004
The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Legal Professions, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194198

Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd: EAT 26 Nov 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer

Citations:

UKEAT/438/03, [2004] UKEAT 0438 – 03 – 1302

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd CA 25-Jul-2005
The claimant said that his employer had failed to respect his right to express his beliefs by obliging him, though a Christian, to work on Sundays.
Held: The appeal failed. ‘The Commission’s position on Article 9, as I understand it, is that, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.194454

William James Quirk v Burton Hospital NHS Trust the National Health Service Pensions Agency: CA 12 Feb 2002

The applicant appealed a refusal to rule that the system of allowing females better retirement options than would be granted to him as a Health Service employee were sexually discriminatory. The difference arose because of differentials applied before the directive came into effect, by the 1980 regulations. The case fell within the rule in Barber, and therefore the Equal Treatment Directive did not apply. The 1995 Regulations had removed the difference, but was not retrospective.

Judges:

Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice Mummery and Lord Justice Buxton

Citations:

Times 19-Feb-2002, Gazette 21-Mar-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 149

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

National Health Service Pension Scheme Regulations 1995 (1995 No 300), National Health Service (Superannuation) Regulations 1980 (1980 No 362), ECTreaty Art 141

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group ECJ 17-May-1990
Europa The benefits paid by an employer to a worker on the latter’s redundancy constitute a form of pay to which the worker is entitled in respect of his employment, which is paid to him upon termination of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.167627

Vroege v NCIV Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting B V: ECJ 28 Sep 1994

Europa The right to join an occupational pension scheme, the rules of which were not laid down directly by law but were the result of negotiation between both sides of the industry concerned and all that the public authorities did was, at the request of such employers’ and trade union organizations as were considered to be representative, to declare the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned, is covered by the concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty with the result that it is subject to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by that article. It follows that an occupational pension scheme which by excluding married women from membership operates discrimination directly based on sex contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty. Where the exclusion concerns part-time workers, that provision is contravened only if the exclusion affects a greater number of women than men unless the employer shows that it may be explained by objectively justified factors unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex.
The limitation of the effects in time of the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber concerns only those kinds of discrimination which employers and pension schemes could reasonably have considered to be permissible owing to the transitional derogations for which Community law provided and which were capable of being applied to occupational pensions. This does not cover discrimination in relation to membership of occupational pension schemes held to be unlawful under Article 119 of the Treaty in the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka which itself contained no temporal limitation of its effects. In the absence of such a limitation, whose later introduction is in any event excluded, the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty can be relied upon in order retroactively to claim equal treatment in relation to the right to join an occupational pension scheme and this may be done as from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne in which the Court held for the first time that Article 119 has direct effect.
The Protocol on Article 119 of the Treaty, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, concerns all benefits paid by an occupational social security scheme but not the right to join such a scheme. The question of membership is thus governed by the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka according to which an undertaking which, without objective justification unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, accords different treatment to men and women by excluding a category of employees from a company pension scheme infringes Article 119 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-57/93, [1994] ECR I-4541

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Benefits

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.161081

Fisscher v Voorhuis Hengelo and Stichting Bedrijfspensioenfonds voor de Detailhandel: ECJ 28 Sep 1994

Europa The right to join an occupational pension scheme, the rules of which were not laid down directly by law but were the result of negotiation between both sides of the industry concerned and all that the public authorities did was, at the request of such employers’ and trade union organizations as were considered to be representative, to declare the scheme compulsory for the whole of the industry concerned, is covered by the concept of pay within the meaning of Article 119 of the Treaty with the result that it is subject to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sex laid down by that article. It follows that an occupational pension scheme which, by excluding married women from membership, operates discrimination directly based on sex, contravenes Article 119 of the Treaty.
The limitation of the effects in time of the judgment of 17 May 1990 in Case C-262/88 Barber concerns only those kinds of discrimination which employers and pension schemes could reasonably have considered to be permissible owing to the transitional derogations for which Community law provided and which were capable of being applied to occupational pensions. This does not cover discrimination in relation to membership of occupational pension schemes held to be unlawful under Article 119 of the Treaty in the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka which itself contained no temporal limitation of its effects. In the absence of such a limitation, the direct effect of Article 119 of the Treaty can be relied upon in order retroactively to claim equal treatment in relation to the right to join an occupational pension scheme and this may be done as from 8 April 1976, the date of the judgment in Case 43/75 Defrenne in which the Court held for the first time that Article 119 has direct effect. However, the fact that a worker can claim retroactively to join an occupational pension scheme does not allow the worker to avoid paying the contributions relating to the period of membership concerned. The national rules relating to time-limits for bringing actions under national law may be relied on against workers who assert their right to join an occupational pension scheme, provided that they are not less favourable for that type of action than for similar actions of a domestic nature and that they do not render the exercise of rights conferred by Community law impossible in practice.
Europa
Although not party to the employment relationship, the administrators of an occupational pension scheme are called upon to pay out benefits which constitute pay within the meaning of Article 119 and, like any employer, must therefore comply with that provision by doing all within their powers to ensure that the principle of equal treatment is observed in this respect and scheme members must be able to rely upon it as against them. The effectiveness of Article 119 would be considerably diminished and the legal protection required to achieve real equality would be impaired if an employee could rely on that provision only as against the employer and not against the administrators of the scheme who are expressly charged with performing the employer’ s obligations.
The Protocol on Article 119 of the Treaty, annexed to the Treaty on European Union, concerns all benefits paid by an occupational social security scheme but not the right to join such a scheme. The question of membership is thus governed by the judgment of 13 May 1986 in Case 170/84 Bilka, according to which an undertaking which, without objective justification unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex, accords different treatment to men and women by excluding a category of employees from a company pension scheme infringes Article 119 of the Treaty.

Citations:

C-128/93, [1994] ECR I-4583, [1994] EUECJ C-128/93, [1995] ICR 635

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc HL 26-Feb-1998
‘Employment’ in context of a sex discrimination claim referred to a current employment contract even in context of there having been a series of repeated contracts of employment. The question was referred to the European Court of Justice. . .
Cited – Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others; Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others (No 3) HL 8-Mar-2006
The appellants said they had been had been discriminated against on the grounds of their sex by the TUPE Regulations. Their discrimination cases had been dismissed as out of time.
Held: The employees’ appeals were dismissed: ‘A statute cannot . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.161099

Arjomand-Sissan v East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust: EAT 17 Apr 2019

VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION – Protected disclosure
The Claimant was employed by the Respondent as an Information Management and Technology Manager between December 2005 and February 2016 when he resigned. By his claim presented in August 2015 and subsequently amended, he made complaints of race discrimination, unfair dismissal and whistleblowing. The latter comprised claims of detriments suffered between December 2009 and February 2016 in consequence of protected disclosures made between February 2007 and March 2015. Following a 12-day hearing all claims were dismissed. In respect of the whistleblowing claim the ET found that there were two protected disclosures and a number of detriments, but that there was no connection between the disclosures and the detriments.
Permission was granted to proceed to a Full Hearing of his appeal on some of the grounds relating to the whistleblowing claim. The essential grounds were that the ET (i) for the purpose of section 43B(1) Employment Rights Act 1996 confused the specificity required (a) within the disclosure and (b) in the case before the Tribunal: Blackbay Ventures Ltd v Gahir [2014] IRLR 416 cf. Bolton School v Evans [2006] IRLR 500; and (ii) in holding that certain of the disclosures were not qualifying disclosures within section 43B(1) and therefore were not protected disclosures, reached conclusions which were perverse.
The EAT dismissed the appeal, holding that there had been no error of law or perversity.

Judges:

Soole J

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0122 – 17 – 1704

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 43B(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637647

McLeary v One Housing Group Ltd: EAT 6 Feb 2019

JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Claim in time and effective date of termination
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Following her resignation, the Appellant complained of various types of disability discrimination and of constructive unfair dismissal. At a Preliminary Hearing the Judge determined that all the complaints of discrimination during employment were out of time and that it was not just and equitable to extend time. Accordingly, they were all dismissed. The unfair dismissal claim, which was in time, was not affected.
Held: on the particular facts of this case, where it was plainly being asserted that discriminatory treatment during employment had contributed to the constructive dismissal, the particulars of claim should have been treated as including a complaint of constructive dismissal contrary to section 39 Equality Act 2010; and/or the issue should at least have been raised and clarified at the initial Case Management Preliminary Hearing. The Appellant had also raised an argument that her various complaints of treatment contrary to the 2010 Act amounted, taken together, to conduct extending over a period for time purposes; and the Employment Tribunal had erred in not considering that.

Citations:

[2019] UKEAT 0124 – 18 – 0602

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.637642

Mangold v Helm: ECJ 22 Nov 2005

ECJ Grand Chamber – Directive 1999/70/EC – Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term work – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 6 – Equal treatment as regards employment and occupation – Age discrimination.
A provision of German labour law excluding protection for short term contracts for those who were over 52 when they were entered into was an unjustified breach of the principle of proportionality. ‘Observation of the principle of proportionality requires every derogation from an individual right to reconcile so far as is possible the requirements of the principle of equal treatment with those of the aim pursued (see to that effect Lommers paragraph 39).’

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2005:709, [2005] EUECJ C-144/04, [2006] IRLR 143, [2005] ECR I-9981, [2006] 1 CMLR 43, [2006] All ER (EC) 383

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2000/78/EC 6, Directive 1999/70/EC 2 5 8

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council EAT 30-Mar-2007
The claimant alleged discrimination. As a teaching assistant, she had been refused permission to wear a veil when assisting a male teacher.
Held: Direct discrimination had not been shown. The respondent had shown that any comparator would have . .
Cited – Paterson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT 23-Jul-2007
EAT PART TIME WORKERS
A police officer was found by the Tribunal to be significantly disadvantaged compared with his peers when carrying out examinations for promotion. Nonetheless, the Tribunal held that he . .
Cited – Age UK, Regina (On the Application of) v Attorney General Admn 25-Sep-2009
Age UK challenged the implementation by the UK of the Directive insofar as it established a default retirement age (DRA) at 65.
Held: The claim failed. The decision to adopt a DRA was not a disproportionate way of giving effect to the social . .
Cited – X v Mid Sussex Citizens Advice Bureau and Another SC 12-Dec-2012
The appellant was disabled, had legal qualifications, and worked with the respondent as a volunteer. She had sought assistance under the Disability Discrimination Act, now the 2012 Act, saying that she counted as a worker. The tribunal and CA had . .
Cited – Chester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
Cited – The United States of America v Nolan SC 21-Oct-2015
Mrs Nolan had been employed at a US airbase. When it closed, and she was made redundant, she complained that the appellant had not consulted properly on the redundancies. The US denied that it had responsibility to consult, and now appealed.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235248

Southampton City College v Randall: EAT 22 Sep 2005

EAT Disability Discrimination: Reasonable Adjustments and Justification; Unfair Dismissal: Reasonableness of Dismissal
The Employment Tribunal is correct in finding that as employer did not regard the employee as disabled and took no steps to consider reasonable adjustments, it was entitled to find that the employer was in breach of sections 5(1) and 5(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Employment Tribunal was also entitled, on the evidence, to find unfair dismissal. Archibald v Fife County Council [2004] IRLR 651; Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Campbell [2003] IRLR 566; Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited [2004] IRLR 395 considered.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

UKEAT/0372/05/DM, [2005] UKEAT 0372 – 05 – 0711

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235317

Cook v South Thames (Wholesale): EAT 25 Oct 2005

Unfair Dismissal and Race Discrimination
When considering on a claim for unfair dismissal by reason of redundancy, the Tribunal gave no reasons relating to section 98(4) except on the Polkey issue.
The Tribunal did not err in law in rejecting a claim of race discrimination.

Judges:

Richardson HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0349 – 05 – 2510

Links:

Bailii

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235053

Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd: EAT 1 Nov 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The claimant appealed dismissal of her action for equal pay, saying that the ‘material factor’ defence used to justify a different payment had been incorrectly applied. It was suggested that the decision on Fernandez did not fit with the ECJ decisions leading up to Brunhoffer.
Held: The Brunhoffer case was to be preferred to Fernandez, since it ‘provides clear guidelines in equal pay cases as to the need for objective justification in all cases.’ In the case of a conflict between UK and European decisions on this subject the European Court should be preferred. ‘the Tribunal approached the genuine material factor defence on a subjective rather than objective view. ‘ and that decision would require a rehearing. When an employer raised in defence to amn action for sex discrimination a defence that there had been a material factor justifying the difference in pay it was for that employer to establish the existence of the condition objectively.
EAT In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.

Judges:

Ansell J

Citations:

UKEAT/0041/05, [2005] UKEAT 0041 – 05 – 0111, [2006] IRLR 4, [2006] ICR 218

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(3), Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1

Citing:

Cited – Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Commissioner v J Fernandez EAT 11-Jun-2003
EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141
The applicant began work as a case worker at a lower salary than a female case worker employed by different departments in the same office. The female case worker was . .
See Also – A Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 18-Apr-2005
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct.
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence. . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .
Cited – Ratcliffe and Others v North Yorkshire County Council HL 7-Jul-1995
Three school dinner ladies had been employed by the Council at National Rates of pay and conditions. Their work which was almost exclusively carried out by females had been rated as of equal value to that of men employed by the council at various . .
Cited – Macarthys Ltd v Smith ECJ 27-Mar-1980
The first paragraph of article 119 of the EEC Treaty applies directly, and without the need for more detailed implementing measures on the part of the community or the member states, to all forms of direct and overt discrimination which may be . .
Cited – Strathclyde Regional Council v Wallace HL 1988
Female teachers carried out the work of principal teachers but had not been appointed to the promoted post and were paid less than they would have received had they been so appointed. They claimed equal pay with male comparators who were appointed . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Tyldesley v TML Plastics Ltd EAT 23-Mar-1995
Mrs Tyldesley complained that she had been paid less than a male comparator. The employer said the reason for this was that the comparator understood and was committed to the concept of total quality management. The tribunal had found that in . .
Cited – Bilka-Kaufhaus v Webers Von Hartz ECJ 13-May-1986
ECJ An occupational pension scheme which, although established in accordance with statutory provisions, is based on an agreement between the employer and employee representatives constitutes an integral part of . .
Cited – Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark v Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening, Acting On Behalf Of Danfoss. (Preliminary Questions ) ECJ 17-Oct-1989
Europa Where the law provides that an industrial arbitration board has jurisdiction in disputes between parties to collective agreements made between employees’ and employers’ organizations and either party may . .
Cited – Hill and Stapleton v The Department of Commissioners and Department of Finance ECJ 17-Jun-1998
Two female employees shared a job in the civil service during which time they each moved up one point in the incremental pay scale with each year of service and were paid fifty percent of the salary for clerical assistants. After two years they . .
Cited – Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and Others ECJ 17-Sep-2002
The employees claimed sex discrimination, and sought to have as comparators, male employees of an employer who had previously employed some of them, before a TUPE transfer of the services supplied. The Court of Appeal referred to the court the . .
Cited – Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd EAT 6-Mar-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
The claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: The new . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235060

Dias v Pelikon Ltd: EAT 9 Feb 2005

EAT Substantive Appeal on Race Discrimination dismissed on preliminary hearing. But allowed to go forward on costs because not clear ET took account of all factors especially circumstances of Appellant; having been dismissed without warning or consultation for redundancy, can be criticised that he searched in race discrimination for a reason. Referred to at very end of preliminary hearing judgment, from paragraph 36 onwards.

Judges:

Altman HHJ

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0833 – 04 – 0902, UKEAT/0833/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.235029

Slaney v Culina Logistick Gmbh T/A Cullina Logistics: EAT 21 Oct 2005

EAT Disability Discrimination: Disability -and- Practice and Procedure: Review
New point allowed on appeal – deemed past disability under the Disability Discrimination Act, Schedule 1, para 7. Original judgment reviewable once the point was taken in review application. Appeal allowed: declaration Employment Tribunal have jurisdiction in Disability Discrimination Act claim.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0291/05, [2005] UKEAT 0291 – 05 – 2110, UKEAT/0292/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – Williams v Ferrosan Ltd EAT 5-Mar-2004
Acting on guidance, the parties representatives and the tribunal had assumed that part of the award relating to loss of future earnings would not be taxable. The question now was whether the tribunal had power of its own motion to review its . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234765

R Chaudhary v The Secretary of State for Health: EAT 4 Oct 2005

EAT Race Discrimination – Burden of proof – Amendment – Racial Group – Fresh evidence – Perversity – Less favourable treatment by alleged discriminator – indirect discrimination, establishing a prima facie case before the burden of proof moves to the Respondent – Limitation; new decision starting time running.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

UKEAT/0512/04, [2005] UKEAT 0512 – 04 – 0410, UKEAT/0513/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.234419

Shah v Haden Building Management Ltd: EAT 28 Sep 2005

The tribunal had served a pre-hearing notice on employment dispute consultants who had acted for the claimant, but who had reserved their position in correspondence with the employers, and had asked that any documents be served on the claimant direct. The claimant did not attend, and her claim was struck out.
Held: The letter had been put before the tribunal, but the firm had in other respects held themselves out as acting for her, and the service was good.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0400 – 05 – 2809, UKEAT/0400/05, Times 02-Nov-2005

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Kyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney CA 5-Jun-2003
An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when . .
Cited – Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage EAT 15-Oct-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Case Management
In considering whether or not to strike out or impose some lesser remedy the guiding consideration was the overriding objective which required justice to be done . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231372

Empower Scotland Ltd v Khan: EAT 2 Sep 2005

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct – Victimisation – A remark of ‘you Pakistanis are all the same’ to a Pakistani in the context of ‘you Muslims are all troublemakers’ is capable of being race discrimination. The Employment Tribunal’s finding of victimisation for having complained of this remark was upheld.

Judges:

His Honour Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EATS/0012/05, [2005] UKEAT 0012 – 05 – 0209

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231340

J Browne v The Governing Body of Kingswood Primary School London Borough of Lambeth: EAT 27 Sep 2005

EAT Redundancy: Fairness
On the issue of a fair redundancy, the tribunal failed to consider statute and regulations and local authority advice in relation to redundancy procedure.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/0601/04, [2005] UKEAT 0601 – 04 – 2709

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231374

Smiths Detection – Watford Ltd v Berriman: EAT 9 Aug 2005

EAT The Employment Tribunal was wrong to find that the Respondent had discriminated against the Claimant under Section 6(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 because it omitted to find what arrangements made by or on behalf of the Respondent, or which physical feature of the Respondent’s premises, placed the Claimant at a substantial disadvantage.
The Employment Tribunal found that reasonable adjustments could have been made although there was no evidence to support the finding and the finding was contrary to the medical evidence.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D Serota QC

Citations:

UKEAT/0712/04, [2005] UKEAT 0712 – 04 – 0908, UKEAT/0144/05

Links:

Bailii, EATn, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 6(1)

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Camden v Price-Job EAT 18-Dec-2007
EAT Disability discrimination – Reasonable adjustments/Justification
1. The employers appealed against two findings by the Tribunal that they had failed to make reasonable adjustments for her disability and . .
Cited – Dundee City Council v Malcolm EAT 25-Jul-2008
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION: Vicarious liability
Sexual harassment claim by an employee of an education authority. Circumstances in which tribunal had misdirected itself as to its own prior judgment and erred in . .
Cited – Stafford and Rural Homes Ltd and Another v Hughes EAT 9-Mar-2009
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION: Reasonable adjustments
Effect of Malcolm: on the facts of the case the decision in Malcolm did not make any difference to the conclusion. There is no requirement in law to set . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.231131

Neary v Egerton-Rothesay Ltd: EAT 18 Jul 2005

EAT Practice and Procedure -and- Unfair Dismissal
No error of law in Employment Tribunal (1) finding that Appellant had been fairly dismissed for some other substantial reason and not because of disability and (2) the dismissal procedure had been fair.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Birtles

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0061 – 05 – 1807, 0061/05

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230896

Rea v Sheridan Millennium Ltd: FENI 15 Feb 2005

Citations:

[2005] NIFET 1189 – 03

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – British Home Stores Ltd v Burchell EAT 1978
B had been dismissed for allegedly being involved with a number of other employees in acts of dishonesty relating to staff purchases. She had denied the abuse. The tribunal had found the dismissal unfair in the methods used to decide to dismiss her. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Northern Ireland, Discrimination

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230816

North Western Health Board v McKenna (Social Policy): ECJ 8 Sep 2005

The claimant female employee was, for almost the entire duration of her pregnancy, on sick leave on medical advice by reason of a pathological condition linked to her pregnancy. After her maternity leave had ended, she was still unable to work on medical grounds and took further sick leave. She received full pay during her maternity leave but half pay for part of her sick leave. The sick-leave scheme of her employer did not distinguish between pregnancy-related illnesses and other forms of illness; thus, for remuneration purposes, she was treated in the same way as a sick man who was absent from work for the same number of days would have been treated. Ms McKenna claimed that she had suffered sex discrimination inasmuch as her pregnancy-related illness had been treated in the same way as a non pregnancy-related illness.
Held: The Court disagreed. The fact that pregnancy-related illnesses are sui generis (affecting only female employees) does not mean that ‘a female worker who is absent by reason of a pregnancy-related illness is entitled to the maintenance of full pay, whereas a worker absent by reason of an illness unrelated to pregnancy does not have such a right’. (17) The Court then compared a female employee who cannot work on medical grounds related to pregnancy to a male employee who cannot work on other medical grounds and concluded: ‘Community law does not require the maintenance of full pay for a female worker who is absent during her pregnancy by reason of an illness related to that pregnancy. During an absence resulting from such an illness, a female worker may thus suffer a reduction in her pay, provided that she is treated in the same way as a male worker who is absent on the grounds of illness, and provided that the amount of payment made is not so low as to undermine the objective of protecting pregnant workers’. Equal pay for men and women – Illness arising prior to maternity leave – Pregnancy-related illness – Person subject to the general sick-leave scheme- Effect on pay – Absence offset against the maximum total number of days of paid sick leave over a specified period.

Judges:

CWA Timmermans, P

Citations:

C-191/03, [2005] EUECJ C-191/03, [2006] All ER (EC) 455, [2006] CEC 69, [2005] ECR I-7631, [2006] 1 CMLR 6, [2005] IRLR 895, [2006] ICR 477

Links:

Bailii

European, Discrimination

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229977

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.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. ‘the health and safety issues . . are issues which arise directly out of the membership by the Claimant of the BNP, which the Tribunal has already found was a party which was open to whites only; and that the direct consequence, as the Tribunal found, of the membership, of that party was the health and safety problem ‘having regard to the high preponderance of passengers and significant number of employees who are of Asian origin’, and this must be a reference to the possible anxiety suffered by these Asian passengers and employees – the latter being a reference to the 35% of employees who presumably might, like the passenger, be upset or anxious. There is no express reference to the employees who are not of Asian origin who might be roused to anger, as mentioned earlier in the Judgment. And then . . the Tribunal again makes entirely clear its conclusion that the action was taken ‘because of the Respondent’s concern in relation to its passengers and employees of Asian origin.” The employer might arguably be accused of deciding that no member of the BNP could be employed by it. A dismissal on health and safety grounds might be based on racial considerations (given the emphasis on Asian colleagues and passengers) and therefore be unlawful. The tribunal had asked itself the wrong question and had erred in law. ‘The Appeal Tribunal must be in a position to be satisfied that the employment tribunal has carried out its job. Absence of reasons is one of the indications that the employment tribunal has not carried out its job.’ The case was remitted to a different tribunal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0153 – 05 – 2707, UKEAT/0153/05, [2005] IRLR 744

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 Amendment Regulations 2003, Race Relations Act 1976, Council Directive of 29 June 2000/43/EC

Citing:

Cited – Weathersfield Ltd (T/a Van and Truck Rentals) v Sargent CA 10-Dec-1998
The employer, a vehicle hire operator, explained to the Claimant employee following her appointment as a receptionist their policy that if she received an enquiry from any coloured or Asians, judging by their voices, she was to tell them that there . .
Cited – Showboat Entertainment Centre v Owens EAT 28-Oct-1983
The employer had dismissed an employee who had refused to comply with a discriminatory instruction by the employer to exclude blacks from the employer’s amusement centre. The tribunal at first instance had found that that was a dismissal ‘on racial . .
Cited – Din v Carrington Viyella Ltd EAT 1982
The court considered what actions could found a claim for racial discrimination: ‘What has to be enquired into is the reason why a particular course was adopted: the question is was it on racial grounds?’ The court deprecated any consideration of . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School EAT 7-Jun-1996
The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer. . .
Cited – Carter v Ahsan EAT 21-Jun-2004
The claimant alleged discrimination in the failure to select him as a candidate. As a Pakistani, he was excluded by a decision not to select such a candidate for this constituency after allegations (later shown false) had been made against that . .
Cited – Abernethy v Mott Hay and Anderson CA 1974
Lord Cairns said: ‘A reason for the dismissal of an employee is a set of facts known to the employer, or it may be of beliefs held by him, which cause him to dismiss the employee. If at the time of his dismissal the employer gives a reason for it, . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Hardys and Hansons Plc v Lax CA 7-Jul-2005
The issue of justification of discrimination is rarely a simple matter. No margin of appreciation was to be allowed to an employer. It is for the tribunal to make its own judgment as to whether the practice complained of by the employee was . .
Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College and others CA 23-Mar-2001
The college failed to renew contracts for lecturers on one year fixed term contracts. A greater proportion of women were subject to such contracts, and the dismissal fell entirely on part time and hourly paid workforce. The condition which the . .
Cited – Sinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Heard, Fellows EAT 12-Apr-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure
Employment Tribunal Chairman, after a Case Management and Directions Hearing to delineate issues and set timetable for May hearing, delayed for three months before delivering . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Serco Ltd v Redfearn CA 25-May-2006
The employee claimed that he had been discriminated against. He had stood as a candidate in local elections for the British National Party (BNP) party. His employers had dismissed him saying that his propagation of racially discriminatory polices . .
At EAT – Redfearn v The United Kingdom ECHR 16-Jan-2009
Statement of facts . .
At EAT – Redfearn v The United Kingdom ECHR 6-Nov-2012
The applicant alleged that his rights had been infringed by his dismissal from his post as driver transporting children and adults with physical and/or mental disabilities. He had stood for election as a candidate for the British National Party, a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229784

PM v The United Kingdom: ECHR 19 Jul 2005

A father complained that tax deductions which were granted to married fathers but not to unmarried fathers were discriminatory. He had paid maintenance for his daughter, but was not allowed to set the payments off against his income tax in the way he would have if he and the mother had been married.
Held: There was no proper justification of the different treatment. The purpose of the allowance was to encourage fathers to support their children, and to support them in making new families. There was no reason why previously unmarried fathers should be treated worse.

Citations:

6638/03, Times 15-Sep-2005, [2005] ECHR 504, (2005) 18 BHRC 668, [2009] ECHR 2255

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights A14 P1a1

Citing:

Cited – McMichael v United Kingdom ECHR 2-Mar-1995
In the course of care proceedings, medical and social services’ reports were disclosed to the courts, but not to the parents involved.
Held: The courts’ failure to show reports to the parents in care proceedings was a breach of the Convention. . .
Cited – James and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 21-Feb-1986
The claimants challenged the 1967 Act, saying that it deprived them of their property rights when lessees were given the power to purchase the freehold reversion.
Held: Article 1 (P1-1) in substance guarantees the right of property. Allowing a . .

Cited by:

Cited – In re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Cited – Rodriguez v Minister of Housing of The Government and Another PC 14-Dec-2009
Gibraltar – The claimant challenged a public housing allocation policy which gave preference to married couples and parents of children, excluding same sex and infertile couples.
Held: The aim of discouraging homosexual relationships is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination, Income Tax

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.229820

British Medical Association v Chaudhary: CA 1 Nov 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1710

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – British Medical Association v Chaudhary EAT 30-Apr-2002
. .

Cited by:

See Also – British Medical Association v Chaudhary CA 15-May-2003
The claimant had sought registration as a specialist medical practitioner by the respondent. His complaint that the crtiria used to reject his claim were discriminatory had been rejected by the employment tribunal and EAT on the basis that they had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Health Professions

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.217798

Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc), Humphrey: EAT 14 Jan 2004

The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims already remitted.
Held: The EAT adopted the practice in Emery Reimbold. The earlier remission of the case had not disposed of the appeal, but was for the purpose of doing so. Could it now therefore be appealed? The employment appeal tribunal, in a case where an employment tribunal is alleged to have failed in its judgment to deal with an issue at all, or to have given no reasons or no adequate reasons for a decision, may invite the employment tribunal to clarify, supplement or give its written reasons before proceeding to a final determination of the appeal.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/873/02/(2), [2004] UKEAT 0873 – 02 – 1401, [2004] ICR 1103, [2004] IRLR 425

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Burns v Consignia Plc, Humphrey EAT 2-Apr-2003
EAT Practice and Procedure – Amendment . .
Cited – De Keyser Limited v Wilson EAT 20-Mar-2001
The claimant appealed against an order striking out her claim.
Held: The right to respect for private life is qualified by the right for both parties to have a just trial of the issues between them; and it has to be borne in mind that it was . .
Cited – Tran v Greenwich Vietnam Community Project EAT 5-Apr-2001
The applicant appealed a rejection of his claim for unfair dismissal. He claimed that the management committee of the organisation had both investigated the complaint and adjudicated upon it, and that the organization’s procedures did not allow for . .
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 . .
Cited – Flannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
Cited – English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd; etc, (Practice Note) CA 30-Apr-2002
Judge’s Reasons Must Show How Reached
In each case appeals were made, following Flannery, complaining of a lack of reasons given by the judge for his decision.
Held: Human Rights jurisprudence required judges to put parties into a position where they could understand how the . .
Cited – Adebowale v Peninsula Business Services Ltd EAT 20-Jan-2003
Burton J P said that the CA had ‘expressly encouraged Courts considering whether an appeal should proceed on grounds of alleged failure to make findings, or alleged absence of reasons, to consider referring the case back to the lower Court for . .
Cited – Prebon Marshall Yamane (UK) Ltd v Rose EAT 3-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .

Cited by:

Cited – Barke v Seetec Business Technology Centre Ltd CA 16-May-2005
Challenge to the lawfulness of the practice of the EAT in referring back to the IT deficient reasons with an invitation to expand upon them.
Held: The words ‘disposing of’ in the section meant ‘dealing with conclusively’ rather than . .
Cited – Woodhouse School v Webster CA 18-Feb-2009
The school appealed against a finding that it had constructively dismissed the claimant. The claimant had refused an order to dismiss a staff member for profound bilateral deafness, saying that that would be unlawful. He had left rather than obey an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.194664

Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary: CANI 28 Jun 2001

Citations:

[2001] NIECA 31

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Citing:

See Also – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary CANI 3-May-2001
Emplaw In sex and race discrimination cases an employee must generally be able to show that he or she has been treated less favourably than a person of the opposite sex who is in comparable circumstances. If . .

Cited by:

See Also – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
See Also – Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary CANI 3-May-2001
Emplaw In sex and race discrimination cases an employee must generally be able to show that he or she has been treated less favourably than a person of the opposite sex who is in comparable circumstances. If . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.180211

D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council: EAT 18 Oct 1995

The employment tribunal held that it had not been practicable for the council to reinstate Mr D’Souza. He had succeeded in a claim for unfair dismissal and sought reinstatement, but this had been refused.
Held: An award of damages was made for the failure to re-instate.

Citations:

Unreported, 18/10/1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 6-Dec-1994
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-May-1995
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 3-Mar-1996
The claimant challenged a decision that the council could properly refuse to re-instate him after a wrongful dismissal. . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 2-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 9-Oct-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v Lambeth Borough Council CA 10-Dec-1997
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 14-Jan-1998
A re-instatement award after a finding of racial discrimination is in two stage process. The first part consisting of the order for re-instatement stays the balance of the award provisionally until the order for re-instatement has been complied with . .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 1-Jul-1998
. .
See Also – D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth and Another EAT 22-Jul-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.183744