Category: Discrimination

Laing Limited v Yassin Essa: CA 21 Jan 2004

The claimant had been awarded damages for race discrimination. The employer appealed.
Held: In a claim for damages under the 1976 Act, it was not necessary to show that the damage suffered was reasonably forseeable.
Pill LJ said: ‘I see no need to superimpose the requirement or prerequisite of reasonable foreseeability upon the statutory tort in order to achieve the balance of interests which the law of tort requires. It is sufficient if the damage flows directly and naturally from the wrong. While there is force in the submission that, to prevent multiplicity of claims and frivolous claims, a control mechanism beyond that of causation is needed, reliance upon the good sense of employment tribunals in finding the facts and reaching conclusions on them is a sufficient control mechanism, in my view. As a mechanism for protecting a defendant against damages which, on policy grounds, may appear too remote, a further control by way of a reasonable foreseeability test is neither appropriate nor necessary in present circumstances.’
Clarke LJ said: ‘In all the circumstances we agree with Pill LJ that there is no need to add a further requirement of reasonable foreseeability and that the robust good sense of employment tribunals can be relied upon to ensure that compensation is awarded only where there really is a causal link between the act of discrimination and the injury alleged. No such compensation will of course be payable where there has been a break in the chain of causation or where the claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Pill

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 2, Times 29-Jan-2004, [2004] IRLR 313, [2004] ICR 746

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Chagger v Abbey National Plc and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed against the limitation of 2% placed on the uplift of his award of damages for having failed to comply with relevant dispute procedures. The tribunal had found exceptional reasons for reducing the uplift given the size of the . .
Cited – Jones and Another v Ruth and Another CA 12-Jul-2011
The parties were neighbours. The claimants succeeded in their assertion of trespass and nuisance in building works carried out by the defendant. The claimant appealed against the judge’s failure to award damages for harassment, saying that though . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.192055

V v Addey and Stanhope School and others: EAT 25 Nov 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Detriment

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

UKEAT/565/03/RN, [2003] EAT 0565 – 03 – 2511, [2003] UKEAT 0565 – 03 – 2511

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – The Governing Body of Addey and Stanhope School v V EAT 15-Aug-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – V v Addey and Stanhope School CA 30-Jul-2004
The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191934

Deman v The Association of University Teachers and Others: EAT 2 Jul 2003

EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel
EAT Practice and Procedure – Estoppel or Abuse of Process.

Judges:

Mr Recorder Luba QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0266 – 03 – 0207, [2003] UKEAT 0266 – 03 – 0207, EAT/142/03, EAT/266/03

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Citing:

Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
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 . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191706

Prince’s Trust and others v Beckford: EAT 6 Feb 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct
The Applicant complained of constructive unfair dismissal, race discrimination, victimisation and breach of contract. The Respondents denied the allegation. The First Respondent contended that it did not dismiss the Applicant but that if it did, it acted fairly and on grounds of redundancy. It denied wrongful dismissal; all Respondents denied discrimination and victimisation.

Judges:

McMullen QC HHJ

Citations:

[2003] UKEAT 303 – 01 – 0602, EAT/303/01

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.191380

East Sussex County Council v Hancock: EAT 5 Nov 2003

EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that it should have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal activities. The expert evidence was that he had no effect on his day-to-day activities by way of loss of concentration or memory.
Held: It was not clear whether the Tribunal had accepted or rejected the expert evidence. It had preferred the evidence of the claimant without giving proper consideration to the expert evidence, and the central conclusion that the claimant was prejudiced by te fear of being in crowds was not supported by any evidence. The appeal succeeded, and the case remitted.

Judges:

Burton P

Citations:

UKEAT/353/03, [2003] UKEAT 0353 – 03 – 0511

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3 491)(g) 4(1)(h)

Citing:

Cited – Vicary v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Feb-1998
A medical report in a disability discrimination claim should deal with the doctor’s diagnosis of the impairments, the doctor’s observation of the applicant carrying out day to day activities and the ease with which he was able to perform those . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
Cited – Greenwood v British Airways Plc EAT 17-Jun-1999
The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal.
Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190545

Spicer v Government of Spain: EAT 10 Oct 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

His Hon Judge Prophet

Citations:

UKEAT/516/03, [2003] UKEAT 0516 – 03 – 2511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – 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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Spicer v Government of Spain CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant worked at a school in London operated by the respondent, and he was paid by them. Spanish teachers received relocation allowances, and he complained that this was discriminatory. The respondent had failed to comply with the order made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190552

Ballamoody v Nursing and Midwifery Council: EAT 24 Oct 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Comparison

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keith

Citations:

UKEAT/0079/03/LA, [2003] UKEAT 0079 – 03 – 2410

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Balamoody v Manchester Health Authority EAT 12-Nov-2001
The Tribunal heard a preliminary application in a claim for unlawful race discrimination. Earlier applications had been struck out. This second set of applications had been struck out as frivolous by the Tribunal on the basis that they were not new . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190162

Murali v British Medical Association: EAT 8 Sep 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

Her Honour Judge A Wakefield

Citations:

UKEAT/850/02/SM, [2003] UKEAT 0850 – 02 – 0912

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.190164

Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others: EAT 3 Nov 2003

EAT Judge McMullen QC adopted a limited view of the scope of the new principle of stable employment set out at the ECJ and HL. He thought it was intended ‘to rescue employees who do not have a permanent job’; and that it was confined to cases of the kind considered by the ECJ, that is those relating to applicants who: ‘worked regularly but periodically or intermittently for the same employer, under successive legally separate contracts.’

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/1069/02 and UKEAT1070/02 U, [2003] UKEAT 1069 – 02 – 1912, [2004] IRLR 96, [2004] ICR 993

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Fletcher and others and Preston and others v Midland Bank Plc and Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust Secretary of State for Health and others EAT 24-Jun-1996
EAT Equal Pay Act – Addendum to principal judgment. Part timers’ claims for membership of pension schemes only made out of time.
EAT Equal Pay Act – (no sub-topic). . .
At HL – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
At ECJ – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others; Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank plc ECJ 16-May-2000
ECJ Social policy – Men and women – Equal pay – Membership of an occupational pension scheme – Part-time workers – Exclusion – National procedural rules – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of equivalence. . .
See Also – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare Trust Secretary of State for Health CA 13-Feb-1997
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others (No 3) CA 7-Oct-2004
The claimants had had their employments transferred to another body under TUPE. They complained that their pension rights had been discriminatory. The employer appealed a finding that their claim had not been out of time.
Held: The effect of . .
Cited – North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS Trust v Fox and Others CA 30-Jun-2010
The employer had altered existing employment contracts. The claimants having commenced discrimination claims then sought to add to the existing proceedings comparators from different job groups. The tribunal had been asked whether, given that this . .
See Also – Bainbridge and others v Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council EAT 23-Mar-2007
EAT Practice and Procedure – Compromise
Equal Pay Act – Work rated equivalent; Damages/Compensation
This case raises three issues, two of which are of particular significance in the field of equal . .
At EAT – 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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189927

Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414): EAT 15 Aug 2003

Claimant’s application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination.
Held: rejected.

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0414 – 03 – 1508, [2003] UKEAT 0414 – 03 – 1508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 8-Nov-2002
race discrimination and disability discrimination in recruitment. . .

Cited by:

Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415 EAT 15-Aug-2003
Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant’s claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189580

Teruel-Fanning v Park View Rest Homes Ltd: EAT 9 May 2003

Judges:

Mr Recorder Hand QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 638 – 02 – 0905, [2003] UKEAT 638 – 02 – 0905, EAT/638/02

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189461

Anyanwu v London Borough of Hackney: EAT 15 Apr 2003

The claimant had been found to be subject to unlawful sex discrimination, but had had an award of nil damages. She appealed.

Judges:

Mitting J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0295 – 02 – 1504, [2003] UKEAT 0295 – 02 – 1504

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.189346

Ebuzoeme v Anyanwu and others: EAT 20 Nov 2003

The Applicants had claimed against the Union that they were discriminated against on the grounds of race and had suffered victimisation and that the Union was in breach of contract. All of these claims were dismissed. The Applicants claimed that the University had knowingly aided acts of discrimination and victimisation by the Union; these complaints were dismissed.

Judges:

Serota QC J

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0279 – 03 – 2011

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188757

Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415: EAT 15 Aug 2003

Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant’s claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the grounds that he was 19 days outside the three month period in presenting his complaint.

Judges:

Ansell HHJ

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0415 – 03 – 1508, [2003] UKEAT 0415 – 03 – 1508

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 8-Nov-2002
race discrimination and disability discrimination in recruitment. . .
Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414) EAT 15-Aug-2003
Claimant’s application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination.
Held: rejected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.188338

Pilar Aida Rojas v Brian Berllaque: PC 10 Nov 2003

PC (Gibraltar) The system of selecting a criminal jury obliged men to be available for selection, but women could choose not to be on the role of jurors. The result was that jury lists and juries were almost entirely male.
Held: (Majority) Since juries are chosen at random from jury lists, a non-discriminatory method of compilation of the jury lists is an essential ingredient of a fair trial by jury. This is inherent in the concept of a fair trial by an impartial jury. Fairness is achieved in the composition of a jury by random selection from a list which is itself fairly constituted. Section 19 of the Supreme Court Ordinance violates section 8 of the Constitution in so far as it discriminates between men and women regarding liability for jury service. There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that a jury acts impartially.

Judges:

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Citations:

[2003] UKHL 76, Times 13-Nov-2003, [2003] UKPC 76, [2004] 1 WLR 201

Links:

PC, Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Porter and Weeks v Magill HL 13-Dec-2001
Councillors Liable for Unlawful Purposes Use
The defendant local councillors were accused of having sold rather than let council houses in order to encourage an electorate which would be more likely to be supportive of their political party. They had been advised that the policy would be . .
Cited – Ponsamy Poongavanam v Regina PC 6-Apr-1992
(Mauritius) The defendant appealed conviction on the ground that the jury had been all male. Women being effectively excluded from jury service in Mauritius. The question was whether, having regard to the composition of the jury, the appellant’s . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Hutchinson; Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith HL 12-Jul-1990
Protesters objected that byelaws which had been made to prevent access to common land, namely Greenham Common were invalid.
Held: The byelaws did prejudice the rights of common. The House was concerned to clarify the test applicable when . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police v Davis PC 1994
(Bahamas) Certain statutory provisions relating to drug offences infringed the Constitution of The Bahamas. A question then arose on the severability of one of the offending statutory provisions, section 22(8) of the Dangerous Drugs Act. This . .
Cited – Berthill Fox v Regina (No 2) PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Christopher and Nevis) The appellant had been convicted of murder, for which the penalty was death. He claimed that the sentence was an infringement of his constitutional and human rights. The constitution declared that it prevailed over all . .
Cited – Regina v Hughes PC 11-Mar-2002
(Saint Lucia) Having been convicted of murder, the defendant was made subject to the mandatory death penalty applied under St Lucia law. He appealed successfully on the basis that the constitution of St Lucia protected him from inhuman or degrading . .
Cited – Reyes v The Queen PC 11-Mar-2002
(Belize) The Criminal Code of Belize provided that any murder by shooting was to be treated as Class A Murder, and be subject to the mandatory death penalty. The applicant having been convicted, appealed saying this was inhuman or degrading . .
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v Mollison (No 2) PC 22-Jan-2003
(Jamaica ) The appellant had been convicted of murder as a youth. He was sentenced to be detained during Her Majesty’s pleasure. The actual length of time to be served was decided by the Governor-General. The decision by the Governor was clearly a . .

Cited by:

Cited – Regina v Connor and another; Regina v Mirza HL 22-Jan-2004
Extension of Inquiries into Jury Room Activities
The defendants sought an enquiry as to events in the jury rooms on their trials. They said that the secrecy of a jury’s deliberations did not fit the human right to a fair trial. In one case, it was said that jurors believed that the defendant’s use . .
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 – Marshall and Others v Deputy Governor of Bermuda and Others PC 24-May-2010
marshall_dgPC10
(Bermuda) The claimants challenged their recruitment by conscription to the Bermuda Regiment on several different grounds. The issues now were whether conscription was lawful only where volunters were insufficient, and whether the acceptance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination, Criminal Practice

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187746

Henry v London Borough of Newham: EAT 13 May 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles QC

Citations:

[2003] EAT 0991 – 02 – 2907, EAT/991/02

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 6-Dec-2002
. .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Henry v London Borough of Newham EAT 29-Jul-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.187233

Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council: EAT 19 Aug 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to accommodate her disability, that they had treated her less favourably for reasons relating to her disability; and in the second case presented in 2000 that they had constructively dismissed her.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

EAT/0033/03, [2003] EAT 0033 – 03 – 2609, [2003] UKEAT 0033 – 03 – 2609

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Meikle v Nottingham City Council EAT 14-Apr-1994
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for indirect racial discrimination based on two grounds. First, that the Tribunal’s decision was perverse; in other words that it was a decision which, on the evidence before it, no reasonable tribunal . .
Cited – Western Excavating (ECC) Ltd v Sharp CA 1978
To succeed in a claim for constructive dismissal the plaintiff must establish a breach of contract by the defendant, that the breach was sufficiently serious to have justified the claimant resigning, or at least be the last in a series of events . .
Cited – Gogay v Hertfordshire County Council CA 26-Jul-2000
The employee sought damages for breach of the implied term of trust and confidence, even though she remained throughout the employment of the Council against whom she was bringing proceedings.
Held: Her remaining in employment was a factor . .
Cited – Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority CA 1985
General damages cannot be awarded for frustration, mental distress or injured feelings arising from an employer’s breach of the implied term of confidence and trust. Dillon LJ said that damages for mental distress in contract are limited to certain . .
Cited – Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd CA 1985
The court considered the circumstances under which an employee might resign and successfully claim constructive dismissal.
Glidewell LJ said: ‘This breach of this implied obligation of trust and confidence may consist of a series of action on . .
Cited – Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Harley EAT 19-Feb-2001
Appeal against a finding that a claim of disability discrimination was in time. . .
Cited – Catherall v Michelin Tyre Plc EAT 21-Oct-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .
Cited – Sutcliffe v Hawker Siddley Aviation Limited NIRC 1973
Though the 1971 Act made no reference to it, nonetheless there could be an unfair dismissal deriving from a constructive dismissal. An argument that the converse interpretation should be adopted because earlier legislation (the 1965 Act) had defined . .
Cited – M H Marshall v Southampton And South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) ECJ 26-Feb-1986
ECJ The court considered the measure of compensation in a successful claim for sex discrimination arising from the health authority’s provision of an earlier compulsory retirement age for women compared with that . .
Cited – Harrold v Wiltshire Healthcare NHS Trust EAT 6-Apr-1998
. .
Cited – Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton EAT 27-Sep-2000
Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186795

Purja and others v Ministry of Defence: CA 9 Oct 2003

The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented discrimination on the grounds of national or social origin.
Held: In isolation, these soldiers were treated differently and worse. Howeevr the greater cost of living in Britain rather than Nepal justified that difference. There were also other additional benefits for Gurkhas, including longer leave periods. The two groups were not in a comparable position. Rix LJ, dissenting, the restriction which did not allow more than 25% of Gurkha soldiers to have their wives accompany them was discriminatory.

Judges:

Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 1345, Times 16-Oct-2003, Gazette 16-Oct-2003, [2004] 1 WLR 289

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same Admn 21-Feb-2003
The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory.
Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and . .

Cited by:

See Also – Limbu and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and others Admn 30-Sep-2008
The applicants who were retired Gurkha soldiers challenged the decision of the Secretary of State to impose a cut off of disallowing those who had retired from the armed forces before 1997.
Held: The rules applied to the Ghurkas were . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Armed Forces, Human Rights

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186637

Erika Steinicke v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit: ECJ 11 Sep 2003

ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen – Germany. Social policy – Equal treatment for men and women – Scheme of part-time work for older employees – Directive 76/207/EEC – Indirect discrimination – Objective justification.

Citations:

C-77/02, [2003] EUECJ C-77/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 76/207/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186329

The University of Huddersfield v Dr P R Wolff: EAT 16 Jul 2003

EAT Sex Discrimination – Burden of proof

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P)

Citations:

EAT/596/02, [2003] EAT 0596 – 02 – 1607, [2003] UKEAT 0596 – 02 – 1607

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186385

Rinke v Arztekammer Hamburg: ECJ 9 Sep 2003

ECJ Equal treatment for men and women – Directives 86/457/EEC and 93/16/EEC – Obligation to undertake certain periods of full-time training during part-time training in general medical practice.
The complainant challenged the validity of the two directives laying down conditions for general medical practice across the community, saying that they were a form of indirect sex discrimination, insofar as they required part time trainees to undertake some periods of full time training.
Held: Insofar as such directives conflicted with the fundamental requirement of equal treatment, they were invalid. It was recognised that more women than men would want to train part time.

Citations:

C-25/02, Times 25-Sep-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-25/02

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 86/457/EEC, Council Directive 93/16/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186327

S J Chinyanga v Buffer Bear Limited: EAT 8 May 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

EAT/300/02, [2003] EAT 0300 – 02 – 0805, [2003] UKEAT 0300 – 02 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

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: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.185937

Karner v Austria: ECHR 24 Jul 2003

A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners ‘pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of unmarried different-sex partners and unmarried same-sex partners, and that that view is supported by recommendations and legislation of European institutions’.
Held: The claim succeeded. As to the margin of appreciation the ECHR stated: ‘The Court can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment. It remains to be ascertained whether, in the circumstances of the case, the principle of proportionality has been respected. The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete measures may be used to implement it. In cases in which the margin of appreciation afforded to Member States is narrow, as [is] the position where there is a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realising the aim sought. It must also be shown that it was necessary to exclude persons living in a homosexual relationship from the scope of [the relevant provision] of the Rent Act in order to achieve that aim.’ The court expressly did not decide whether the applicant’s case fell within the scope of ‘family life’ or ‘private life’.

Judges:

CL ROZAKIS, P

Citations:

(2003) 38 EHRR 528, 40016/98, (2003) 2 FLR 623, [2003] ECHR 395, [2003] Fam Law 724, [2004] 2 FCR 563, 14 BHRC 674, [2004] 38 EHRR 24

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Superceded – S v United Kingdom ECHR 1986
The applicant was not entitled in domestic law to succeed to a tenancy on the death of her partner. The aim of the legislation is question was to protect the family, a goal similar to the protection of the right to respect for family life guaranteed . .
Superceded – Roosli v Germany ECHR 1996
. .

Cited by:

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 – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Cited – Wilkinson v Kitzinger and others FD 31-Jul-2006
The parties had gone through a ceremony of marriage in Columbia, being both women. After the relationship failed, the claimant sought a declaration that the witholding of the recognition of same-sex marriages recoginised in a foreign jurisdiction . .
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 . .
Cited – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
Eweida_ukECHR2013
The named claimant had been employed by British Airways. She was a committed Christian and wished to wear a small crucifix on a chain around her neck. This breached the then dress code and she was dismissed. Her appeals had failed. Other claimants . .
Cited – Steinfeld and Keidan, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for International Development (In Substitution for The Home Secretary and The Education Secretary) SC 27-Jun-2018
The applicants, an heterosexual couple wished to enter into a civil partnership under the 2004 Act, rather than a marriage. They complained that had they been a same sex couple they would have had that choice under the 2013 Act.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 08 June 2022; Ref: scu.186171

Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge: EAT 4 Mar 2003

EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s appeal was dismissed. ‘There must be many cases in which the disabled person has been placed at a substantial disadvantage in the workplace, but in which the employer does not know what it ought to do to ameliorate that disadvantage without making enquiries. To say that a failure to make those enquiries would not amount to a breach of the duty imposed on employers by section 6(1) would render section 6(1) practicably unworkable in many cases.’ The Trust was in breach of the duty imposed on it by section 6(1).
The claimant appealed rejection of her claim for having been victimised for her disability, and the compensation awarded. Workmen were provided with dust masks as they demolished a nearby wall at work, but she had not been. She became unfit for full time work. Unsuccessful attempts were made to ease her back into work. The Trust’s officers had not considered whether she was to be considered disabled, and she was told to return to work or be dismissed. The Trust claimed that the Tribunal had put an improper gloss on the statute.
Held: The appeal failed. The attempted phased return to work did not mean that an assessment was not required. As to the need to make enquiries ‘A proper assessment of what is required to eliminate the disabled person’s disadvantage is therefore a necessary part of the duty imposed by section 6(1) since that duty cannot be complied with unless the employer makes a proper assessment of what needs to be done.’ The tribunal properly decided that: ‘her compensation will have to be discounted to reflect the possibility that an assessment might have established that no steps could reasonably have been taken to ameliorate her disadvantage.’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keith

Citations:

EAT/755/02, [2003] EAT 0755 – 02 – 1403, [2003] UKEAT 0755 – 02 – 1403, [2003] IRLR 566

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Citing:

Cited – Clark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .

Cited by:

Cited – Hay v Surrey County Council CA 16-Feb-2007
The claimant had been employed driving a mobile library. She came to suffer back problems, and was dismissed when the respondent said that she could not work within a library without the ability to lift, after she turned down a move to a different . .
Cited – Project Management Institute v Latif EAT 10-May-2007
EAT The Appellant is a qualifying body, subject to section 14 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The Tribunal found that it had failed to make a reasonable adjustment in the arrangements it made for sitting an . .
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 . .
Distinguished – Bruce v Chamberlain, Addleshaw Goddard and Co CA 29-Jul-2004
. .
Cited – Mitchell v Seagate Technology Ireland NIIT 22-Sep-2008
. .
Cited – Morrison v Key Housing Association EAT 23-Aug-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Cited – Wheeler v Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd EAT 18-Oct-2004
EAT Disability Discrimination – Justification . .
Cited – T, Regina (on the Application of) v OL Primary School and Another Admn 18-Apr-2005
. .
Cited – Tarbuck v Sainsbury’s Supermarkets EAT 8-Jun-2006
EAT The appellant was disabled. She was found to have been unfairly dismissed and the subject of three acts of disability discrimination. One of these was an alleged failure to consult which was treated as a . .
Cited – Metrobus Ltd v Cook EAT 9-Jan-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – reasonable adjustments
Practice and Procedure – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
On the Claimant’s concession that the Employment Tribunal, not having being shown . .
Cited – Spence v Intype Libra Ltd EAT 27-Apr-2007
EAT The appellant who was disabled was dismissed after a long absence from work. He made various claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, all of which were rejected. He contended that the failure to . .
Cited – HM Prison Service v Johnson EAT 6-Aug-2007
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less Favourable Treatment / Reasonable Adjustments / Justification
The Claimant was a prison psychologist who developed a depressive illness amounting to a disability within . .
Not preferred – Rider v Leeds City Council EAT 27-Nov-2012
rider_leedsEAT2012
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
The Claimant worked for the Respondent as a Nursery Officer at Armley Moor Children Centre. She raised grievances against colleagues and she was seconded to another post away . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184371

Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 17 Jun 2003

The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker’s allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a ‘possession’ within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights.
Held: The meaning of possessions within the Convention was autonomous. In the field of social security the Strasbourg court has drawn a line between contributory and non-contributory benefits. The decision to exclude foreign residents from uprating of benefits was objectively justified without regard to cost. Equally there was an objective justification for the differentiation between under and over 25s in the payment of benefits, at least as regards jobseekers allowance.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 797, Times 28-Jun-2003, [2003] 3 All ER 577

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights , Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 79, Jobseekers Act 1995 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina (Annette Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 22-May-2002
The claimant received a UK state pension. She lived in South Africa, and challenged the exclusion of foreign resident pensioners from the annual uprating of pension benefits. She asserted that the state pension, or its uprating, were pecuniary . .
Appeal from – Reynolds, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Admn 7-Mar-2002
. .
Cited – Marckx v Belgium ECHR 13-Jun-1979
Recognition of illegitimate children
The complaint related to the manner in which parents were required to adopt their own illegitimate child in order to increase his rights. Under Belgian law, no legal bond between an unmarried mother and her child results from the mere fact of birth. . .
Cited – Willis v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jun-2002
Discrimination in the payment of ‘widows payment’ and widowed mother’s allowance infringed the rights conferred by article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 but no finding was made about the widow’s pension. The risk of the applicant being . .
Cited – Relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics) No 2 ECHR 9-Feb-1967
The applicants, parents of more than 800 Francophone children, living in certain (mostly Dutch-speaking) parts of Belgium, complained that their children were denied access to an education in French.
Held: In establishing a system or regime to . .
Cited – E (A Minor) v Dorset County Council CA 1995
It is generally unwise to give summary judgment in cases where the relevant law is uncertain or in a state of development: ‘This must mean that where the legal viability of a cause of action is unclear (perhaps because the law is in a state of . .
Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Vaughan v United Kingdom ECHR 1987
Article 8 does not impose any positive obligation to provide financial assistance to support a person’s family life. . .
Cited – Gaygusuz v Austria ECHR 16-Sep-1996
The applicant was a Turkish national resident in Austria. While working there he had paid unemployment insurance contributions. At a stage when he was unemployed he applied for an advance on his pension in the form of emergency assistance. That was . .
Cited – Carlin v United Kingdom ECHR 1-Dec-1997
The Commission dismissed as manifestly unfounded a complaint that the suspension of Industrial Injuries Disability Benefit during a person’s imprisonment involved any violation of Article 1P. It reiterated that ‘it is still necessary, in order for . .
Cited – Botta v Italy ECHR 24-Feb-1998
The claimant, who was disabled, said that his Article 8 rights were infringed because, in breach of Italian law, there were no facilities to enable him to get to the sea when he went on holiday.
Held: ‘Private life . . includes a person’s . .
Cited – Szrabjer and Clarke v United Kingdom ECHR 17-Jun-1998
The applicants were denied the earnings-related element of their pensions while they were in prison, pursuant to s.113(1)(d) of the 1992 Act which I have set out. They claimed violations both of Article 1P, and of Article 14 read with Article 1P. . .
Cited – Petrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
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 – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
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 – Sporrong and Lonnroth v Sweden ECHR 18-Dec-1984
Balance of Interests in peaceful enjoyment claim
An interference with the peaceful enjoyment of possessions must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirements of the protection of the individual’s fundamental rights. This balance is . .
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 – Regina v Director of Public Prosecutions, ex parte Kebilene and others HL 28-Oct-1999
(Orse Kebeline) The DPP’s appeal succeeded. A decision by the DPP to authorise a prosecution could not be judicially reviewed unless dishonesty, bad faith, or some other exceptional circumstance could be shown. A suggestion that the offence for . .
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 – Quintavalle, Regina (on the Application of) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority CA 16-May-2003
A licence was sought so that a couple could have a child who would be tissue typed to establish his suitability to provide an umbilical cord after his birth to help treat his future brother. A licence had been granted subject to conditions, and the . .

Cited by:

Cited – Anufrijeva and Another v London Borough of Southwark CA 16-Oct-2003
The various claimants sought damages for established breaches of their human rights involving breaches of statutory duty by way of maladministration. Does the state have a duty to provide support so as to avoid a threat to the family life of the . .
Cited – Bishop of Roman Catholic Diocese of Port Louis and Others v Suttyhudeo Tengur and Others PC 3-Feb-2004
PC (Mauritius) A father challenged the constitutionality of a system where 50% of places in Catholic run secondary schools were allocated to Catholic childen, and fifty per cent according to merit. He feared this . .
Cited – Douglas v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 19-Dec-2003
The applicant had sought a student loan to support his studies as a mature student. It was refused because he would be over 55 at the date of the commencement of the course. He claimed this was discriminatory.
Held: The Convention required the . .
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 – Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd and others CA 25-Jun-2004
The applicant challenged the decision of the court that the sperm donor who had fertilised her eggs to create embryos stored by the respondent IVF clinic, could withdraw his consent to their continued storage or use.
Held: The judge worked . .
Cited – S, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
Cited – Khan v Royal Air Force Summary Appeal Court Admn 7-Oct-2004
The defendant claimed that he had gone absent without leave from the RAF as a conscientous objector.
Held: The defendant had not demonstrated by complaint to the RAF that he did object to service in Iraq. In some circumstances where there was . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v Hindawi and Headley CA 13-Oct-2004
The applicant was a foreign national serving a long-term prison sentence. He complained that UK nationals would have had their case referred to the parole board before his.
Held: The right to be referred to the parole board was a statutory . .
Approved – A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 16-Dec-2004
The applicants had been imprisoned and held without trial, being suspected of international terrorism. No criminal charges were intended to be brought. They were foreigners and free to return home if they wished, but feared for their lives if they . .
Appeal from – 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 . .
At Court of Appeal – Carson and Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 4-Nov-2008
(Grand Chamber) Pensioners who had moved abroad complained that they had been excluded from the index-linked uprating of pensions given to pensioners living in England.
Held: This was not an infringement of their human rights. Differences in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Human Rights, Benefits

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.184064

Nagarajan v Agnew: EAT 21 Jul 1993

Mr Nagarajan, of Indian birth, had brought several complaints to the Tribunal based on race. A settlement was reached on or about 1st November 1989 in full and final settlement of all his claims arising out of his employment with London Underground Ltd. His employment by LUL had ceased by then. Mr Nagarajan, after a spell of unemployment, applied for a job with LUL’s holding company, LRT. Mr Agnew, a manager, on being asked to fill in a form about that application, firmly recommended against Mr Nagarajan’s re-employment. LRT rejected the job application. The company now appealed against a finding of discrimination victimisatio.
Held: The appeal succeeded. There has to be a ‘subsisting employment relationship’ at the time when the events complained of in section 4(2) of the Act occur. The majority of the events listed in that subsection can occur only during employment, the whole provision is couched in the present tense, and had Parliament intended to include post-employment benefits, it would have made that intention explicit. The claimant being no longer employed, the decision was fundamentally flawed.
Where there are mixed motives for the action complained of, the unlawful motive must be of sufficient weight in the decision making process to be treated as a cause of the act so motivated.

Judges:

Knox J

Citations:

[1995] ICR 520, [1993] UKEAT 270 – 92 – 2107

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4(2)

Cited by:

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 – O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School and Another EAT 24-May-1996
The claimant had been dismissed as a teacher by the respondent Roman Catholic school after she became pregnant by a priest. She had been found to have been unfairly dismissed, but the tribunal had rejected her claim of discrimination for pregnancy. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183814

Dr C C Anya v University of Oxford Dr S G Roberts: EAT 4 Feb 2003

EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination

Judges:

His Hon Judge Ansell

Citations:

EAT/294/02, [2003] EAT 0294 – 02 – 0402, [2003] UKEAT 0294 – 02 – 0402

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Citing:

See Also – 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 . .
See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 1-Oct-1998
Preliminary hearing . .
See Also – Anya v University of Oxford and Another EAT 17-Dec-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – 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

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183620

Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue: CA 18 Jun 2003

The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife’s death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent refused to make good any claim which had not been originally pursued to the European Court, since there was no obligation, the case having been a friendly settlement not creating an obligation, and saying that primary legislation (s262) required them not to make a payment. One of the primary tasks of the Commissioners is to recover those taxes which Parliament has decreed shall be paid. Section 1 of the 1970 Act permits them to do this pragmatically with regard to principles of good management. Concessions can be made where those will facilitate the overall task of tax collection. Nevertheless Parliament did not intend the benefit to be available to men, and it was outside the scope of a concession to allow it. A declaration of incompatibility was made.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Rix Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 814, Times 28-Jun-2003, 2002/0648, Gazette 04-Sep-2003, [2003] 1 WLR 2683

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 1998 4, Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262, Taxes Management Act 1970 1(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wilkinson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Admn 14-Feb-2002
The case concerned the differential tax treatment between men and women, which granted to widows a tax allowance that was not granted to widowers.
Held: The court made a ‘declaration of incompatibility’ pursuant to section 4. 1(1) of the TMA . .
Cited – Abdulaziz etc v The United Kingdom ECHR 28-May-1985
Three women, all lawfully settled in the UK, had married third-country nationals but, at first, the Secretary of State had refused permission for their husbands to remain with them, or join them, in the UK.
Held: The refusals of permission had . .
Cited – Fielding v The United Kingdom ECHR 29-Jan-2002
Hudoc Judgment (Struck out of the list) Struck out of the list (friendly settlement)
The claimant’s wife had died. He sought the benefits, including tax allowances, which would have been paid to him had he . .
Cited – Bates v Inland Revenue Commissioners HL 1968
Section 402, on its plain meaning, produced results in some cases which were ‘monstrous’ and which Parliament can never have intended. The Commissioners had not sought to amend the legislation, but realising the monstrous result of giving effect to . .
Cited – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2) ChD 1979
The Commissioners of Inland Revenue do not have, any more than does any other emanation of the Crown, any power to suspend or dispense with laws. ‘It is at this point that there arises what Mr Potter, for the taxpayers, has denominated as a serious . .
Cited – Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners ChD 1979
The case concerned section 478, which had monstrous and unintended results, if applied in accordance with its natural meaning. The Commissioners did not seek to apply the section in a manner which produced such results. The court held: ‘One should . .
Cited – Absolom v Talbot 1943
Scott LJ said: ‘No judicial countenance can or ought to be given in matters of taxation to any system of extra-legal concessions.’ . .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – British Sky Broadcasting Group Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Admn 23-Feb-2001
The Commissioners are under a common law duty to treat taxpayers fairly, and not to discriminate without justification between taxpayers. . .
Cited – Regina v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Unilever plc CA 1996
The Revenue had refused to exercise a discretion in favour of the taxpayer in the same form it had granted for over twenty years. The taxpayer complained that this was unfair.
Held: The new approach to late applications, brought in without any . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wilkinson, Regina (on the Application Of) v Inland Revenue HL 5-May-2005
The claimant said that the widows’ bereavement tax allowance available to a wife surviving her husband should be available to a man also if it was not to be discriminatory.
Held: Similar claims had been taken before the Human Rights Act to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Income Tax, Discrimination, Taxes Management, Human Rights

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183699

Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed: EAT 27 Jun 1997

News Group Newspapers Ltd had been joined as a party, in order that it could argue the obvious public interest relating to the importance, which has long been accepted in the courts, of the interest, not just of the press but of the public generally, in freedom of reporting and openness in court hearings. Discrimination associated with a gender re-assignment process was not sex discrimination within the Act.

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

[1998] ICR 97, [1997] IRLR 556, [1997] UKEAT 1063 – 96 – 2706

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – P v S and Cornwall County Council ECJ 30-Apr-1996
An employee at an educational establishment told management that he intended to undergo gender reassignment. He was given notice of dismissal.
Held: The scope of the Directive was not confined to discrimination based on the fact that a person . .

Cited by:

Cited – The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education EAT 2-Oct-2001
The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be . .
Cited – Ashton v The Chief Constable of West Mercia Constabulary EAT 27-Jul-2000
Where a dismissal was properly related to poor work performance, the fact that such a deterioration in performance was associated with a gender reassignment process being undergone by the employee, did not make the dismissal sex discrimination. To . .
Cited – Goodwin v The United Kingdom ECHR 11-Jul-2002
The claimant was a post operative male to female trans-sexual. She claimed that her human rights were infringed when she was still treated as a man for National Insurance contributions purposes, where she continued to make payments after the age at . .
Cited – Cart v The Upper Tribunal SC 21-Jun-2011
Limitations to Judicial Reviw of Upper Tribunal
Three claimants sought to challenge decisions of various Upper Tribunals by way of judicial review. In each case the request for judicial review had been first refused on the basis that having been explicitly designated as higher courts, the proper . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Judicial Review

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183062

Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester: EAT 21 Jun 1996

The Industrial Tribunal only has jurisdiction to consider and rule upon the act or acts of which complaint is made to it. The questions on a complaint of race discrimination are: (a) Did the act complained of actually occur? (b) If the act complained of occurred in time, was there a difference in race involving the applicant? (c) If a difference in race was involved, was the applicant treated less favourably than the alleged discriminator treated or would treat other persons of a different racial group in the same, or not materially different, relevant circumstances? (d) If there was difference in treatment involving persons of a different race, was that treatment ‘on racial grounds’? Were racial grounds an effective cause of the difference in treatment? What explanation of the less favourable treatment is given by the respondent?

Mummery J said: ‘In the present case, it was necessary for the Tribunal to examine all the allegations made by Dr Qureshi of other incidents relied upon by him as evidentiary facts of race discrimination in the matters complained of. There is a tendency, however, where many evidentiary incidents or items are introduced, to be carried away by them and to treat each of the allegations, incidents or items as if they were themselves the subject of a complaint. In the present case it was necessary for the Tribunal to find the primary facts about those allegations. It was not, however, necessary for the Tribunal to ask itself, in relation to each such incident or item, whether it was itself explicable on ‘racial grounds’ or on other grounds. That is a misapprehension about the nature and purpose of evidentiary facts. The function of the Tribunal is to find the primary facts from which they will be asked to draw inferences and then for the Tribunal to look at the totality of those facts (including the respondent’s explanations) in order to see whether it is legitimate to infer that the acts or decisions complained of in the originating applications were on ‘racial grounds’. The fragmented approach by the Tribunal in this case would inevitably have the effect of diminishing any eloquence that the cumulative effect of the primary facts might have on the issue of racial grounds. The process of inference is itself a matter of applying common sense and judgment to the facts, and assessing the probabilities on the issue whether racial grounds were an effective cause of the acts complained of or were not. The assessment of the parties and their witnesses when they give evidence also form an important part of the process of inference. The Tribunal may find the force of the primary facts is sufficient to justify an inference of racial grounds. It may find that any inference that it might have made is negated by a satisfactory explanation from the respondent of non-racial grounds of action or decision.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

[2001] ICR 863, [1996] UKEAT 484 – 95 – 2305, EAT/484/95

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Chapman and Another v Simon CA 1994
The Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider and rule upon other acts of racial discrimination not included in the complaints in the Originating Application.
Racial discrimination may be established as a matter of direct primary . .

Cited by:

Approved – 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 – The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Cited – Law Society v Bahl CA 30-Jul-2004
The claimant had succeeded before the employment tribunal in her claim of race discrimination by the respondent and senior officers. She now appealed the reversal of that judgment. The claimant asked the tribunal to draw inferences of discrimination . .
Cited – Driskel v Peninsula Business Services Ltd Michael Huss Anthony Sutcliffe, Peter Done EAT 17-Dec-1999
EAT The claimant said that she had been subjected to crass sexual banter by her senior manager. She refused to take up a post unless he was moved, and when he declined to so, she was dismissed.
The court . .
Cited – Lisboa v Realpubs Ltd and Others EAT 11-Jan-2011
lisboa_realpubsEAT11
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
Whether Respondent’s policy of encouraging a wider clientele at a formerly gay pub involved less favourable treatment of gay customers causing the Claimant to resign in . .
Cited – Cumbria Probation Board v Collingwood EAT 28-May-2008
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability / Disability related discrimination / Reasonable adjustments
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
>2002 Act and pre-action requirements
The date of disability is . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.183405

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 no jurisdiction.
Held: The section and rules establishing the Training authority clearly reserved to that authority exclusive jurisdiction, and the tribunal had been right to decline to hear it.

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Latham

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 645, Times 20-May-2003, [2003] ICR 1512

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 54(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Brind HL 7-Feb-1991
The Home Secretary had issued directives to the BBC and IBA prohibiting the broadcasting of speech by representatives of proscribed terrorist organisations. The applicant journalists challenged the legality of the directives on the ground that they . .
Cited – Khan v General Medical Council CA 11-Apr-1994
The appellant’s application for full registration as a qualified medical practitioner had been refused by the GMC after a five-year maximum period of limited registration. His application for full registration in accordance with section 25 of the . .
Cited – Allsop v North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council CA 1991
The district auditor declared that payments made by the Council under an ‘enhanced voluntary severance scheme’, established by it in connection with its policy of not making employees compulsorily redundant, were unlawful. The payments were . .
See Also – British Medical Association v Chaudhary CA 1-Nov-2002
. .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

Cited – Prakash v Wolverhampton City Council EAT 1-Sep-2006
EAT The Claimant was employed on a fixed term contract. During the terms of the contract he was dismissed for misconduct and made an application to the Employment Tribunal (ET) claiming unfair dismissal. He . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Health Professions, Discrimination

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.182223

Yashin Essa v Laing Ltd: EAT 17 Feb 2003

The claimant appealed against the level of damages awarded on his claim for race discrimination on the basis that he had not shown that his hurt feelings were not shown to have been reasonably forseeable.
Held: The tribunal had erred. It was natural and invitable that humiliation and hurt would follow discrimination. The claimant had only to show that his hurt was caused by the discrimination. He did not additionally have to establish that those feelings could have been foreseen by the defendant.

Judges:

Serota QC

Citations:

Times 07-Apr-2003, Gazette 09-May-2003, [2003] UKEAT 0697 – 01 – 1702, [2003] ICR 1110

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan and Others EAT 27-May-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Compensation
APPEAL
Council and a charity both supplied members to a recruitment panel which victimised the Claimant – Tribunal makes . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.180511

Deman v Association of University Teachers: CA 14 Mar 2003

The appellant challenged dismissal of his claim for race discrimination. In the midst of a dispute with the employer University. He was dissatisfied with the support given by his union. He was refused legal assistance save through a firm of lawyers who acted for the union.
Held: the Tribunal were obliged to give a clear explanation of why they had not drawn an inference of race discrimination.

Judges:

Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

[2003] EWCA Civ 329, Gazette 22-May-2003, A1/2002/1022

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Deman v Association of University Teachers and others EAT 5-Feb-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination
EAT Race Discrimination – Inferring discrimination. . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
See also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 12-Jan-2000
. .
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:

Cited – Madden v Preferred Technical Group CHA Limited, Guest CA 27-Aug-2004
The claimant had made a complaint of race discrimination. The complaint was dismissed. Some time later the company dismissed him, and he again lodged a complaint. The tribunal found him unfairly dismissed, but again not discriminated against.
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers CA 1-Nov-2002
Application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Deman v Association of University Teachers EAT 7-Oct-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 07 June 2022; Ref: scu.179921

Archibald v Fife Council: EAT 12 Dec 2002

EAT Disability Discrimination – Adjustments
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0025/02, [2002] UKEAT 0025 – 02 – 1212

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal from – Archibald v Fife Council IHCS 9-Dec-2003
The applicant was a roadsweeper. She complained of disability discrimination, when after becoming unable to walk, her employer after considering her for other posts dismissed her for incapacity.
Held: The ability to walk was a part of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178563

Vento v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police (No 2): CA 20 Dec 2002

The claimant had been awarded damages for sex discrimination, including a sum of andpound;25,000 for injury to feelings. The respondent appealed.
Held: The Court of Appeal looked to see whether there had been an error of law in the employment tribunal decision. It did not look to see whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal had erred in law in reviewing that decision (Hennessy). This did not change with Civil Procedure Rules 52.11. Courts should be reluctant to award very substantial sums for injury to feelings. The most serious cases should be in the bracket andpound;15,000 to andpound;25,000, and the top figure should be exceeded only in the most exceptional cases. The court set out three broad elements of the compensation to be awarded in such cases. From andpound;5,000 to andpound;15,000 is appropriate for other serious cases. andpound;500 to andpound;5,000 is appropriate for not serious cases, including one off acts. A sum of less than andpound;500 should not be awarded, since this would appear an insult.

Judges:

Lord Justice Jonathan Parker, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Ward

Citations:

Times 27-Dec-2002, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2003] ICR 318, [2002] EWCA Civ 1871, [2003] IRLR 102

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 52.11, Sex Discrimination Act 1975 66(4), Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21 35 37

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Hennessy v Craigmyle and Co Ltd CA 1986
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘It is too often forgotten that, in the context of appeals from the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the Court of Appeal is a second tier of the appellate court . . second tier appellate courts are primarily concerned with the . .
See Also – The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Vento EAT 8-Jun-2000
EAT A claim was made for sex discrimination. The tribunal considered the approach to be taken in the absence of a real comparator.
Held: The tribunal had been correct to construct an hypothetical . .
See Also – The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento EAT 19-Oct-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Victimisation . .
Appeal from – The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Vento EAT 4-Dec-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Campion v Hanworthy Engineering Ltd CA 1987
The Court discussed the scope of the hearing in the Court of Appeal in an employment case. . .
Cited – Walls Meat Company Limited v Selby CA 1989
The court upheld an Industrial Tribunal decision that the dismissal of the employee was unfair where the employer failed to enter into any further consultation with the union or the employee after it had prepared a list of names of employees . .
Cited – Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge CA 24-May-2002
. .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Cannock and Others EAT 2-Aug-1994
Compensation awarded for a pregnancy dismissal was to assume that the worker would ready to work again after six months. Review and guidelines of damages for unfair dismissal for pregnancy. The hypothetical question requires careful thought before . .
Cited – Johnson v HM Prison Service and Others EAT 31-Dec-1996
Awards of damages for race discrimination were proper against both the employer, and an individual racist employee. 28k was not too much. Aggravated damages might be appropriate for direct discrimination where a complainant relied upon malice of . .
Cited – Heil v Rankin CA 13-Jun-2000
Where supervening events might contribute to the personal injury suffered, the proper approach in apportioning compensation in respect of one occasion was in general terms to provide just and sufficient compensation for the injury caused without . .
Cited – Alexander v Home Office CA 1988
Prisoners are a section of the public for the purposes of the 1976 Act. The Court increased an award for injury to feelings awarded for race discrimination by prison officers from pounds 50 to pounds 500. The court considered the appropriate level . .
Cited – Gbaja-Biamila v DHL International (UK) Ltd and others EAT 1-Mar-2000
EAT Race Discrimination – Injury to Feelings
EAT Race Discrimination – Injury to feelings. . .
Cited – North West Thames Regional Health Authority v Noone CA 1988
The question of whether an employer has acted in a racially discriminatory is to be concluded not as a matter of law, but from his behaviour and almost as a matter of common sense.
May LJ said: ‘As there is not often direct evidence of . .

Cited by:

Cited – British Telecommunications plc v Reid CA 6-Oct-2003
The respondent appealed an award of pounds 10.000 for damages for an act of direct race discrimination. The claimant, of Afro-Caribbean origin, had been subjected to a racist comment.
Held: Translating hurt feelings into hard currency will . .
Cited – Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
Cited – Scott v Inland Revenue CA 2-Apr-2004
The employee had claimed damages for unfair dismissal. The Revenue had subsequently changed its policy on retirement, but did not disclose this to the claimant. The change would have altered the calculation of the damages.
Held: A calculation . .
Cited – Lambe v 186K Ltd CA 29-Jul-2004
The claimant had been dismissed for redundancy, but the company had been found not to have consulted him properly, and he had therefore been unfairly dismissed. The tribunal had then found that even if consulted the result would not have been . .
Cited – KD v Chief Constable of Hampshire QBD 23-Nov-2005
The claimant’s daughter had made a complaint of rape. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the investigating police officer, and sought damages also from the defendant, his employer. The officer denied that anything improper or . .
Cited – Miles v Gilbank CA 11-May-2006
The employee claimed she had been bullied by her manager after she became pregnant. She sought damages both from the employer and from the manager personally.
Held: The manageress was personally liable. The scheme for sex based discrimination . .
Cited – Martins v Choudhary CA 20-Dec-2007
The appellant appealed the award of damages for personal injury and harrassment. He was said to have driven the claimant off the road and to have made racist remarks. He had previously been found to be in contempt of court for breaches of . .
Cited – Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts and Technology CA 20-Feb-2009
In 2000 the claimant succeeded in his claim for discrimination, but had not pursued his remedy. He now appealed against a refusal to allow him to take it further. He had initially failed to pursue the matter for ill health. He later refused to . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Fletcher EAT 9-Oct-2009
mod_fletcherEAT2009
EAT SEX DISCRIMINATION
Injury to feelings
SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION
Where there is overlap between the basis of aggravated damages and compensation for injury to feelings, double counting . .
Cited – Chagger v Abbey National Plc and Another CA 13-Nov-2009
The claimant appealed against the limitation of 2% placed on the uplift of his award of damages for having failed to comply with relevant dispute procedures. The tribunal had found exceptional reasons for reducing the uplift given the size of the . .
Cited – Milner and Another v Carnival Plc (T/A Cunard) CA 20-Apr-2010
Damages for Disastrous Cruise
The claimants had gone on a cruise organised by the defendants. It was described by them as ‘the trip of a lifetime.’ It did not meet their expectations. There had been several complaints, including that the cabin was noisy as the floor flexed with . .
Cited – Wardle v Credit Agricole Corporate and Investment Bank CA 11-May-2011
The claimant had been found to have been unlawfully dismissed and to have suffered nationality discrimination. Each party appealed against aspects of the compensatory award including the application of the statutory uplift, and the calculation of . .
Cited – Cairns v Modi CA 31-Oct-2012
Three appeals against the levels of damages awards were heard together, and the court considered the principles to be applied.
Held: In assessing compensation following a libel, the essential question was how much loss and damage did the . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Kemeh EAT 11-Mar-2013
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS- Agency relationships
RACE DISCRIMINATION
Direct
Injury to feelings
Accepted, in line with EAT authority, that common law agency principles apply to Race Relations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178542

Hendricks v The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis: CA 27 Nov 2002

The appellant appealed a finding of the Employment Appeal Tribunal against her. She had complained of sex and race discrimination. She alleged that the Tribunal had concentrated on the issues of policy within the respondent police force.
Held: The true issues were how in fact the complainant had been treated, and the Tribunal had concentrated too much on what were the policies of the Respondent. Attempts should be made to concentrate on the most recent and most serious allegations to limit the scope of the hearings.

Judges:

Judge, Mummery, May LJJ

Citations:

Times 06-Dec-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1686, [2003] IRLR 96, [2003] 1 All ER 654, [2002] All ER (D) 407, [2003] ICR 530

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Hendricks EAT 5-Nov-2001
EAT Jurisdiction – (no sub-topic). . .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

Cited – Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
Cited – James v Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd CA 23-Oct-2008
The claimant renewed his application for leave to appeal.
Held: The claimant’s first ground was unarguable. His original application failed to comply with the requirements of the 2002 Act. On the second ground, the tribunal had disagreed with . .
Cited – Arthur v London Eastern Railway Ltd (T/A One Stansted Express) CA 25-Oct-2006
The claimant brought a claim for detriment suffered after he had made a protected disclosure. The employer replied that he was out of the three month time limit. He had been off sick after being assaulted, and said that his employers had treated him . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Police, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178476

Ahmed v Governing Body of the University of Oxford and Another: CA 20 Dec 2002

The claimant sought damages for race discrimination. He appealed a dismissal of his claim, suggesting that the assessor’s role had been misunderstood.
Held: The structure of the Act recognised the particular difficulties in assessing evidence in race discrimination cases, by requiring experienced lay persons to sit with the chair. There was no direct useful comparison between their role in race cases and their role in other forms of litigation. They were there to assist the judge in evaluating the evidence, in the broadest way. Where assessors were given directions on the law, such directions should be given in public, and where they contributed expert evidence, that would require the parties to have opportunity to respond. The procedure of reaching a decision together remained confidential. The section would not be working if judges consistently went against the agreed opinion of the assessors.

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, The Master Of The Rolls, Lord Justice Waller

Citations:

Times 17-Jan-2003, Gazette 13-Mar-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1907, [2003] 1 WLR 995

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 67(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178549

Douglas McFarlane v Shell (UK) Ltd: EAT 20 Nov 2002

EAT The tribunal asked whether the claimant was disabled within the Act. He suffered depression, but the tribunal had found it not substantial and not capable of lasting more than 12 months.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Lord Johnston

Citations:

EATS/0016/02, [2002] UKEAT 0016 – 02 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178504

A Power v Panasonic UK Ltd: EAT 17 Sep 2002

EAT The tribunal had held that the applicant was not a disabled person within the meaning of the Act because only of an addiction to alcohol. This was not to be treated as an impairment. She also suffered from depression.
Held: The tribunal should have determined whether the depression constituted an impairment within the meaning of the Act without inquiring into its cause. ‘Further, in our judgment, the employment tribunal erred in its approach, as evidenced in the last sentence of paragraph 24 of its decision. It is not material to a decision as to whether a person is suffering a disability within the meaning of the Act, to consider how the impairment from which they are suffering was caused. What is material is to ascertain whether the disability from which they are suffering at the material time is a disability within the meaning of the Act or whether, where it is relevant as in this case, it is an impairment which is excluded by reason of the Regulations from being treated as such a disability.’

Judges:

Ms Recorder Slade QC

Citations:

EAT/747/01, [2003] IRLR 151, [2002] UKEAT 747 – 01 – 1709

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Power v Panasonic UK Ltd EAT 24-Jan-2002
. .

Cited by:

Followed – Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Mason EAT 1-Jul-2003
EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability.
Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to . .
Cited – Council of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination.
Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the . .
Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178225

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 question of whether they could rely upon Article 141(1) to base such a comparison.
Held: There was nothing explicit in the wording to restrict the comparison. However, here there was no one body answerable for the inequality and the comparison was invalid.
There is, in this connection, nothing in the wording of article 141(1) EC to suggest that the applicability of that provision is limited to situations in which men and women work for the same employer. The court has held that the principle established by that article may be invoked before national courts in particular in cases of discrimination arising directly from legislative provisions or collective labour agreements, as well as in cases in which work is carried out in the same establishment or service, whether private or public: see, inter alia, Defrenne [1976] ICR 547, 568, para 40; Macarthys Ltd v Smith (Case 129/79 [1980] ICR 672, 690, para 10, and Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd (Case 96/80) [1981] ICR 592, 613-614, para 17.
However, where, as in the main proceedings here, the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, there is no body which is responsible for the inequality and which could restore equal treatment. Such a situation does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC. The work and the pay of those workers cannot therefore be compared on the basis of that provision.
In view of all the of the foregoing, the answer to the first question must be that a situation such as that in the main proceedings, in which the differences identified in the pay conditions of workers of different sex performing equal work or work of equal value cannot be attributed to a single source, does not come within the scope of article 141(1) EC.’

Judges:

Case C-320/00

Citations:

C-320/00, [2002] EUECJ C-320/00, [2003] ICR 1092

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty 119 141(1)

Citing:

Reference from – A Lawrence and Others v Regent Office Care Limited; Commercial Catering Group and Mitie Secure Services Limited CA 21-Jun-2000
. .
At EAT – Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others EAT 5-Nov-1998
. .

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Cited – Sodexo Ltd v Gutridge and others EAT 31-Jul-2008
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT
JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: Claim in time and effective date of termination
The claimants alleged that their employer had been in breach of their rights under the Equal Pay Act 1970. They . .
Cited – Armstrong and others v Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust CA 21-Dec-2005
The claimants claimed equal pay, asserting use of particular comparators. The Trust said that there was a genuine material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: To constitute a single source for the purpose of article 141, it is not . .
Considered – Robertson and others v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs CA 22-Feb-2005
The claimants argued that civil servants in one government department could establish that civil servants in another department could stand as comparators in their equal pay claim.
Held: It was not necessarily the person with whom the workers . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177355

Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra: EAT 12 Dec 2000

EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other
The employer appealed a finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. She suffered an apparently minor injury, but which led to long standing disability with varying diagnoses. The company doctor came to consider it would be a long time before she could return. She was dismissed for capability.
Held: There was potentially a fair reason. The issue was whether the employer had acted reasonably. The employer argued that the defect on the original dismissal was cured in the appeal. To succeed, the employer must show that the appeal was a full appeal, not just a review. The tribunal had failed to explain its finding that the appeal had been merely a review, and accordingly the unfair dismissal decision must fail. As to the discrimination, the tribunal had improperly short circuited the steps necessary to establish discrimination, and that appeal also must be allowed.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/547/99, [2000] UKEAT 547 – 99 – 1212

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 98(4), Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Citing:

Cited – West Midlands Co-operative Society v Tipton HL 1986
All information available to an employer at the date of the termination of the employment relationship is relevant when considering the fairness of dismissal, and also any information becoming available during the course of, for example, an internal . .
Cited – P B Baynton v Saurus General Engineers Ltd EAT 14-Jul-1999
The Tribunal set out the order of questions to be established in a claim of disability discrimination: ‘The statutory sequence for establishing justification in a s.5(1)(a) claim is as follows: (1) The disabled appellant shows less favourable . .
Cited – H J Heinz Co Ltd v Kenrick EAT 3-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation. . .
See Also – Gate Gourmet London Ltd v Jangra EAT 13-Apr-1999
. .
See also – Gate Gourmet v Jangra EAT 7-Feb-2000
. .

Cited by:

See also – Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT 8-Oct-2001
. .
See Also – S B Jangra v Gate Gourmet London Ltd EAT 3-Oct-2002
EAT Disability Discrimination – Adjustments
The claimant had suffered a cut finger at work. Severe complications resulted in her eventual dismissal for incapacity. She sought to allege disability . .
See Also – Gate Gourmet v J B Jangra EAT 12-Dec-2002
EAT Unfair Dismissal – Other . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.177369

Iwuchukwu v City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust: CA 26 Mar 2019

Appeal from a decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal allowing the Respondent’s appeal against those aspects of claims for direct race discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal which were upheld against it by the Employment Tribunal

Citations:

[2019] EWCA Civ 498

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.634819

El-Al Israel Airlines Ltd v Danielowitz, National Labour Court: 30 Nov 1994

(Israel) ( Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice) Justice Barak said: ‘The factual premise is that people are different from one another, ‘no person is completely identical to another’ . . Every person is a world in himself. Society is based on people who are different from one another. Only the worst dictatorships try to eradicate these differences.’

Judges:

Justice Barak

Citations:

HCJ 721/94, [1992-4] IsrLR 478

Links:

Cardozo

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate SC 28-Jul-2016
(Scotland) By the 2014 Act, the Scottish Parliament had provided that each child should have a named person to monitor that child’s needs, with information about him or her shared as necessary. The Institute objected that the imposed obligation to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

International, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.628558

McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Limited: CA 26 Jul 2002

The Disability Rights Commission sought leave to intervene in a claim between the parties for disability discrimination.
Held: The Commission has important duties, but that did not give it the right, save in exceptional circumstances, to intervene to make representations in an action before a court or tribunal.
Mummery LJ said that the approach a court should adopt when faced with medical evidence as to mental impairment is as follows: ‘The essential question in each case is whether, on sensible interpretation of the relevant evidence, including the expert medical evidence and reasonable inferences which can be made from all the evidence, the applicant can fairly be described as having a physical or mental impairment.’

Judges:

The Vice-Chancellor, Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Wall

Citations:

Times 26-Aug-2002, Gazette 03-Oct-2002, [2002] EWCA Civ 1074, [2002] ICR 1498, [2002] IRLR 711, [2002] Emp LR 1097, (2003) 71 BMLR 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Rights Commission Act 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Rugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd EAT 28-Aug-2001
Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological . .

Cited by:

Cited – Bailey v Warre CA 7-Feb-2006
The claimant had been severely injured in a road traffic accident. His claim was compromised and embodied in a court order, but later a question was raised as to whether he had had mental capacity at the time to make the compromise he had.
Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174426

Matthews v The United Kingdom: ECHR 15 Jul 2002

The claimant sought an order that he had been discriminated having been refused an elder person’s bus pass at an age when a woman would have been entitled to one.
Held: The respondent had confirmed that the situation was to be corrected by legislation. A friendly settlement was recorded and the action struck from the list

Judges:

J-P Costa, P and Judges W. Fuhrmann, L. Loucaides, Sir Nicolas Bratza, H. S. Greve, K. Traja and M. Ugrekhelidze Section Registrar S. Dolle

Citations:

Times 30-Jul-2002, 40302/98, [2002] ECHR 592, [2002] ECHR 597

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14, Travel Concessions (Eligibility) Act 2002, Travel Concessions (Extension of Entitlement) Order 2001 (SI 2001 No 3765)

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.174390

Six Continents Retail Ltd (Formerly Bass Taverns Limited T/A Bass Leisure Retail) v Hughes: EAT 19 Apr 2002

The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination after her summary dismissal. Though she received some advice, her application was lodged out of time. For the unfair dismissal and unlawful deductions claims, the test was whether it had been reasonably practicable to act within the time limits, but for the sex discrimination claim, the test was a just and equitable test. The tribunal had also to ask whether the claim was presented within a practicable time after the limitation period had expired. She had had difficulties with a pregnancy, and from losing her accommodation which went with the job.
Held: Here the tribunal had not applied the correct tests. Appeal allowed and case remitted.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/1312/00, [2002] UKEAT 1312 – 00 – 1904

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 111(2)(b) 23(4)

Employment, Discrimination, Limitation

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.173993

Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solictors: EAT 17 Dec 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

EAT/1116/00, [2002] UKEAT 1116 – 00 – 2502, [2002] ICR 971

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See Also – Rowden v Dutton Gregory Solicitors EAT 1-Mar-2001
Disability Discrimination – Disability. . .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172096

Derby Specialist Fabrication Ltd v J N Burton: EAT 27 Sep 2000

Race Discrimination – Direct. After dealing with the arguments based on the history of the various statutes: ‘Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts as to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’
Constructive dismissal came within the term ‘dismissal’, as used in section 4(2)(c). There was no reason to give the word ‘dismissal’ a narrow meaning so as to exclude constructive dismissal: ‘We can see some force in the reasoning in Harrold, but in the end we are not persuaded by it. There may be a number of reasons why Parliament chose to make an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, not least its wish to ensure that there could [be] no doubt whatsoever about the Act’s compliance with Community law, as the judgment in Harrold indicates. It cannot be taken as an indication by Parliament that, in other legislation with which it was not dealing, ‘dismissal’ was to be given a restricted meaning. We emphasis that because, if one approaches the meaning of ‘dismissal’ in the Race Relations Act without that extraneous influence, there is no reason why it should be so construed as to exclude constructive dismissal. Whether the employer deliberately dismisses the employee on racial grounds or he so acts to repudiate the contract by racially discriminatory conduct, which repudiation the employee accepts, the end result is the same, namely the loss of employment by the employee. Why should Parliament be taken to have distinguished between these two situations?’

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Keene

Citations:

EAT/1139/99, EAT/817/99, [2001] ICR 833, [2001] IRLR 69, [2000] UKEAT 817 – 99 – 2809, [2001] 2 All ER 840

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Cited by:

Cited – Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle CA 8-Jul-2004
The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for . .
Cited – Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT 19-Aug-2003
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171915

Conoco Ltd v Kevan Booth: EAT 30 Jan 2001

EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was advised to remove him from safety critical positions. They made attempts to find alternate work, but the claimant said the attempts were inadequate, and the tribunal agreed.
Held: Where the potential for alternative employment lay for practical purposes exclusively within the knowledge of the employer, the burden of proof is on the employer to satisfy the tribunal that there was no alternative employment, available in the reasonably acceptable future for this employee. The company had not discharged this burden, and their appeal failed.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Collins Cbe

Citations:

EAT/83/00, [2001] UKEAT 83 – 00 – 3001

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 6

Citing:

See Also – Conoco Ltd v Booth EAT 6-Apr-2000
The EAT held a preliminary hearing on the employer’s appeal against a finding of disability discrimination. . .
Cited – Goodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172011

Wilding v British Telecom Plc: EAT 2 Apr 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/901/99, [2001] UKEAT 901 – 99 – 0204

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – British Telecommunications Plc v Wilding EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .
Cited – Payzu Limited v Saunders CA 1919
The innocent plaintiff buyers had been found to have failed to mitigate their damages because they had not accepted an offer from the defendant sellers (who were in breach of contract) to supply goods on cash terms, the contract having originally . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Wilding v British Telecommunications Plc CA 19-Mar-2002
The employee challenged the Employment Tribunal’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that he had not acted reasonably in refusing an offer of re-employment made by his employer.
Held: The appeal failed. Potter LJ said: ‘As was made clear in the . .
See Also – British Telecommunications Plc v Wilding EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172057

Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd: EAT 7 Dec 2001

EAT The EAT considered the expression ‘likely to last’ in paragraph 2(1)(b) of the Act, and stated: ‘It is always tempting to accord, and is often appropriate, when it is charged with finding out what at some earlier date the future would then have seem to hold, to have regard to what the future in fact came to pass to be, as, by the date of the hearing, will have sometimes come to be the case’.
‘But both the terms of Schedule 1, paragraph 2(1)(b), and the opening words of paragraph B8 of the Guidance emphasise that here what has to be examined is the existence or not of a likelihood. The question is not whether the impairment in fact lasted at least 12 months (as would very often, given inescapable delays in arranging hearings, be capable of being easily seen by looking backwards from the date of the hearing) but whether the ‘period for which it lasts is likely to be at least 12 months’. Although the latter part of the first sentence of paragraph B8 is unhelpful as guidance, it is not, in our view, intended to displace the otherwise proper construction of paragraph 2(1)(b), which the present tense ‘is likely’ assists towards, namely that the likelihood falls to be judged as it currently was, or would have seemed to have been, at the point when the discriminatory behaviour occurred. The latter part of paragraph B8 (taking account of the typical length rather than the actual length of an effect as it has transpired to be) emphasises that it is not what has actually later occurred but what could earlier have been expected to occur which is to be judged.
Mr Harris has sought to persuade us that Greenwood v British Airways plc [1999] ICR 969 is to the contrary, in particular at p 977E-F. It is clear that in some respects that paragraph is not to the contrary, but to the extent that it is we must respectfully differ from it’.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (P)

Citations:

[2002] ICR 1453, EAT/1303/00, [2002] UKEAT 1303 – 00 – 2002, [2002] ICR 1453

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See Also – Latchman v Reed Business Information Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2001
. .
Cited – Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891) Ltd v Pontypridd Waterworks Co HL 1903
A coalmine owner claimed statutory compensation against a water undertaking which had, under its statutory authority, prevented him mining his coal over a period during which the price of coal had risen. The House was asked whether the coal should . .

Cited by:

Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Overruled – SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland) HL 1-Jul-2009
The claimant suffered a condition which would lead to the development of vocal nodules unless she followed a program which would allow her to avoid raising her voice. She said that employer should not have placed her within a noisy environment. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.172093

Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others: EAT 20 Nov 2001

EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/1410/00, [2001] UKEAT 1410 – 00 – 2011

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others EAT 20-Dec-2001
The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171606

Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal: EAT 10 Apr 2000

The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for discrimination had been properly allowed. The Act should be interpreted sufficiently widely to provide a remedy for the ill it sought to cure.
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/1386/00, [2001] UKEAT 1386 – 00 – 1004

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appealed to – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Cited – Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mcdonagh (Sued on Her Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Other Members of the Labour Party) v Z Ali H S Sohal EAT 10-Apr-2000
The applicants were suspended from membership of the Labour party. As a result they were unable to stand for election as councillors. They alleged racial discrimination.
Held: The position as councillor fell within the Act, and the claim for . .
Appeal from – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171805

Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd v Filmer: EAT 20 Sep 2001

Against a background of disciplinary proceedings alleging threats by the employee, and allegations of harassment, she was dismissed for ill health. She requested an adjustment to the procedures to allow her to give written evidence after advice from her doctor about the inadvisability of attending a hearing for her health. When this was refused, she laid a complaint of disability discrimination. It was agreed that she was disabled, and that her complaint of harassment had been unable to continue in the light of the way the disciplinary proceedings were conducted. The tribunal had failed to address the 6(4)(a) question. The tribunal was wrong to dismiss the employer’s defence of justification on the sole grounds that they were ignorant of the Code, particularly where they had allowed for the need to make reasonable adjustments.
Held: Appeal remitted to the same tribunal.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

EAT/1087/00, [2001] UKEAT 1087 – 00 – 0510

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1996 6(4)(a)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Johnson and Johnson Medical Ltd v Filmer EAT 12-Mar-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171605

Hayes v Charman Underwriting Agencies Ltd: EAT 19 Nov 2001

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/242/00, [2001] UKEAT 242 – 00 – 1912

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Hayes v Charman Underwriting Agencies Ltd EAT 24-Jul-2000
. .
See Also – Hayes v Charman Underwriting Agencies Ltd EAT 19-Dec-2000
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Hayes v Charman Underwriting Agencies Ltd CA 4-Mar-2002
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171608

Murphy v Sheffield Hallam University: EAT 11 Jan 2000

The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he failed.
Held: The tribunal gave reasons for finding that the disability had played no part in the decision not to employ the claimant. The appeal failed.
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/6/99, [2000] EAT 6 – 99 – 1101

Links:

EAT, Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Citing:

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 – Owen and Briggs v James CA 1981
Sex need not be the sole ground on which the less favourable treatment is based. Provided that it is a significant factor, albeit one of a number of factors, the others being gender-neutral, it will be open to an Industrial Tribunal to find that . .
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 – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171442

Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd: EAT 19 May 1999

The refusal of an employer to provide a reference to an employee who had left and claimed sex discrimination against the company could of itself and also found a claim for sex discrimination as victimisation. European regulations required the court to interpret our own regulations widely enough to comply with the European Regulations. The claim arose from employment even after it had ceased.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Morison (President)

Citations:

Times 03-Jun-1999, EAT/1332/95, [1999] UKEAT 1332 – 95 – 1905

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC)

Citing:

At ECJ – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171614

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth: EAT 15 Jun 2000

EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/461/99, [2000] EAT 461 – 99 – 1506, [2000] IRLR 691

Links:

EATn, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Farnsworth EAT 30-Jun-1999
. .

Cited by:

Cited – London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm HL 25-Jun-2008
Unrelated Detriment was no Discrimination
The tenant had left his flat and sublet it so as to allow the landlord authority an apparently unanswerable claim for possession. The authority appealed a finding that they had to take into account the fact that the tenant was disabled and make . .
See Also – Desmond A Quinn v Schwarzkopf Ltd EAT 10-Oct-2000
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.171466

BBC Scotland v Souster: SCS 7 Dec 2000

English and Scottish are Separate Racial Groups

The English and Scottish peoples are recognised as separate racial groups. Discrimination on the basis that someone was English or Scottish was therefore discrimination for the purposes of the 1976 Act. Since Parliament had not amended or defined the concept of national origins when passing the 1976 Act, then in accordance with the principle in Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Company Limited, it should be presumed that Parliament intended the concept to have the same meaning as had been elucidated in their Lordships’ House.

Judges:

Lord Cameron of Lochbroom and Lord Marnoch and Lord Nimmo Smith

Citations:

[2000] ScotCS 308, [2001] IRLR 150, [2001] SC 458

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 37, Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

Applied – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Leading Case

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.169155

Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark: EAT 4 Feb 2002

EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Burton

Citations:

EAT/0702/00, [2002] UKEAT 702 – 00 – 0402

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Woodrup v Southwark EAT 9-Nov-2000
. .

Cited by:

Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Appeal From – D Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark CA 2003
Simon Brown LJ said: ‘As will readily be seen, it provides (perhaps rather surprisingly) that someone is to be treated as disabled even though they are not in fact disabled (even, that is, where they suffer no substantial adverse effect on their . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.168493

Wilding v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 19 Mar 2002

The employee challenged the Employment Tribunal’s finding, upheld by the EAT, that he had not acted reasonably in refusing an offer of re-employment made by his employer.
Held: The appeal failed. Potter LJ said: ‘As was made clear in the Judgment of the EAT, (at paragraph 64) the various authorities referred to by the Tribunal (see paragraph 22 and 23 above) and Payzu -v- Saunders are apt to establish the following principles which (in a form which I have somewhat recast) were accepted as common ground between the parties. (i) It was the duty of Mr Wilding to act in mitigation of his loss as a reasonable man unaffected by the hope of compensation from BT as his former employer; (ii) the onus was on BT as the wrongdoer to show that Mr Wilding had failed in his duty to mitigate his loss by unreasonably refusing the offer of re-employment; (iii) the test of unreasonableness is an objective one based on the totality of the evidence; (iv) in applying that test, the circumstances in which the offer was made and refused, the attitude of BT, the way in which Mr Wilding had been treated and all the surrounding circumstances should be taken into account; and (v) the court or tribunal deciding the issue must not be too stringent in its expectations of the injured party. I would add under (iv) that the circumstances to be taken into account included the state of mind of Mr Wilding.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Brooke, Potter LJ

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 349

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Wilding v British Telecom Plc EAT 2-Apr-2001
EAT Disability Discrimination – Compensation . .
Cited – Payzu Limited v Saunders CA 1919
The innocent plaintiff buyers had been found to have failed to mitigate their damages because they had not accepted an offer from the defendant sellers (who were in breach of contract) to supply goods on cash terms, the contract having originally . .

Cited by:

Cited – F and G Cleaners v Saddington and Others EAT 16-Aug-2012
EAT UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Mitigation of loss
The Claimants worked for Respondent 1 who supplied window cleaning services under contract to a local authority. The contract was subject to a re-tendering process; . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.170001

Bayliss v London Borough of Hounslow: CA 21 Mar 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 354

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Bayliss v London Borough of Hounslow and others EAT 22-Oct-1999
. .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’
Lord Justice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.169999

Panesar v Consignia Plc: EAT 17 Dec 2001

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Honour Judge D M Levy QC

Citations:

EAT/1251/00, [2001] UKEAT 1251 – 00 – 1712

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Panesar v Consignia Plc EAT 8-Mar-2001
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168459

Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Cleave CB v Morgan: EAT 6 Feb 2002

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/851/99, [2002] UKEAT 851 – 99 – 0602, [2002] IRLR 776

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

Followed – Transport for London and Another v Aderemi EAT 4-Nov-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Direct and Victimisation
Burden of Proof
The Employment Tribunal conflated the two concepts of firstly less favourable treatment and secondly whether there was a prima facie . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168492

Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Constabulary v Chew: EAT 27 Sep 2001

The Constabulary appealed against a decision that they were guilty of indirect sex discrimination, as regards the way they had implemented part time working and shift duties. The parties differed as the pool of employees from which the comparison was to be taken. There were unresolved issues of fact, and if these would affect the decision, the case would have to be remitted to the ET for hearing. More women than men could not comply with the new arrangements, and the difficulties were associated with child care responsibilities. The test was in two stages, was there a disparate effect of the condition applied, and was the detriment justified. The question was one of discretion, and the tribunal had not erred in law.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Charles

Citations:

EAT/503/00, [2001] UKEAT 503 – 00 – 2809

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Citing:

Cited – London Underground Limited v Edwards CA 21-May-1998
A new driver roster imposing shift working timetables discriminated against women since significantly less in proportion of women could meet the new arrangements – indirect discrimination . .
Cited – Seymour-Smith and Perez; Regina v Secretary of State for Employment, Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another ECJ 9-Feb-1999
Awards made by an industrial tribunal for unfair dismissal are equivalent to pay for equal pay purposes. A system which produced a differential effect between sexes was not indirect discrimination unless the difference in treatment between men and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Discrimination

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168336

Sommerville-Cotton v Barclays Capital Services Ltd: EAT 25 Jan 2002

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Wall

Citations:

EAT/372/00, [2002] UKEAT 372 – 00 – 2501

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168498

The Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v A, Secretary of State for Education: EAT 2 Oct 2001

The Force appealed findings of sex discrimination against the respondent who had undergone gender reassignment. She required the fact of the procedure to be kept secret. The force refused her application for appointment since they said she would be unable to conduct searches, which were required in law to be by officers of the same sex as the person to be searched. She asserted that others would be able to conduct such searches.
Held: The force had treated the applicant in the same way they would have dealt with a female to male gender assignee. The Act was clearly not intended to cope with these issues, but it must do so. It appeared implicit from the Tribunal’s decision that the Force could be required to hold the applicant out to detainees and members of the public as female, when in law she remains a male. The tribunal erred. Adjusting to the applicant’s requirements would be require unacceptable alterations, and the applicants requirements as to privacy were conflicting. However the incidence of physical searches was so low as to be not relevant.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/231/00, EAT/661/99, [2002] ICR 552, [2001] UKEAT 661 – 99 – 0210

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 7, Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Chessington World of Adventures Ltd v Reed EAT 27-Jun-1997
News Group Newspapers Ltd had been joined as a party, in order that it could argue the obvious public interest relating to the importance, which has long been accepted in the courts, of the interest, not just of the press but of the public . .
Cited – Corbett v Corbett (otherwise Ashley) FD 1-Feb-1970
There had been a purported marriage in 1963 between a man and a male to female trans-sexual.
Held: Because marriage is essentially a union between a man and a woman, the relationship depended on sex, and not on gender. The law should adopt the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – A v Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police and Another CA 5-Nov-2002
The appellant had undergone a male to female sex change, but was refused employment by the respondent before the Human Rights Act came into effect.
Held: Although the Human Rights Act could not apply, the act was in breach of the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168330

Dr H Platt, NHS Executive HQ, Department Of Health v R Chaudhary and Others, R Chaudhary and others: EAT 20 Dec 2001

The Authority and other respondents appealed a refusal to strike out the applicant’s claim as an abuse of process, on the basis that other proceedings were current between the same parties at another tribunal. Abuse of process is distinct from cause of action estoppel, and issue estoppel, but has in common that litigation should be final and a party should not be twice vexed in the same matter.
Held: The chairman was in error. A tribunal could add an amendment to a claim raising matters occurring after the claim had been issued despite earlier cases to the contrary. It was not clear that the matters raised in the new proceedings could properly be tried as part of the proceedings in the other tribunal, and accordingly the new proceedings were not an abuse of process.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

EAT/1101/00, EAT/1100/00, [2001] UKEAT 1100 – 00 – 2012

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Applied – Johnson v Gore Wood and Co HL 14-Dec-2000
Shareholder May Sue for Additional Personal Losses
A company brought a claim of negligence against its solicitors, and, after that claim was settled, the company’s owner brought a separate claim in respect of the same subject-matter.
Held: It need not be an abuse of the court for a shareholder . .
See Also – Chaudhary v The Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges and 8 others EAT 20-Nov-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Health Professions

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168490

Martin v Goldsobel: EAT 6 Sep 2001

The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a woman does not need to show that her pregnancy was the only cause, or even the main cause, of her being dismissed; it is enough if it was an effective cause. The Tribunal misdirected itself that the Appellant had to establish both the test for automatic unfair dismissal and the test for sex discrimination, and the reasons had failed to deal in sufficient detail with the factual disputes.
EAT Sex Discrimination – Inferring Discrimination

Judges:

Mr Recorder Underhill QC

Citations:

EAT/0381/00, [2001] UKEAT 0381 – 00 – 0609

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Rights Act 1996 99

Citing:

Applied – 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. . .
See Also – Martin v Goldsobel EAT 9-Jun-2000
. .
Cited – Lewis Woolf Griptight Ltd v Corfield EAT 25-Mar-1997
The applicant succeeded on her claim of sex discrimination even though her pregnancy was not the principal reason for her dismissal (and therefore the claim for automatic unfair dismissal failed). . .
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 June 2022; Ref: scu.168321

College of Ripon and York St John v Dr Hobbs: EAT 14 Nov 2001

The college appealed a finding that the applicant who had been found to be disabled within the Act, but denied discrimination. They appealed the finding of the tribunal which had failed to identify whether the disability was mental or physical.
Held: There was sufficient evidence of impairment to constitute disability. The expert evidence was not conclusive, but the tribunal had cause to base its finding.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/585/00, [2001] UKEAT 585 – 00 – 1411, [2002] IRLR 185

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – J v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.168403