Chandhok and Another v Tirkey (Race Discrimination): EAT 19 Dec 2014


EAT Race Discrimination – The Claimant worked for the Respondents as a domestic worker. She claimed that they treated her badly and in a demeaning manner, and (by amendment) that this was in part because of her low status which was infected with considerations of caste. The Respondents applied to strike out this amendment, on the ground that ‘caste’ did not fall within the definition of ‘race’ in s.9 of the Equality Act 2010, and that the enactment of s.9(5) both initially and as subsequently amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 demonstrated that Parliament recognised it was excluded from the definition in s.9(1).
Held That though ‘caste’ as an autonomous concept did not presently come within s.9(1) many of the facts relevant in considering caste in many of its forms might be capable of doing so, since ‘ethnic origins’ in s.9(1)(c) had a wide and flexible ambit, including characteristics determined by ‘descent’, and it became common ground during the argument that it was possible that the facts found in hearing the present claim might come within the scope of that phrase. General observations were made about the inappropriateness of relying on assertions as to facts not set out in the claim form when seeking to strike out part of the claim.

Langstaff P J
[2014] UKEAT 0190 – 14 – 1912
Equality Act 2010 9
England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.540352