EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs
R1, C’s former academic supervisor, declines to give her a reference – C brings victimisation claim on basis that he knew, and was motivated by the fact, that she had previously brought a sex discrimination claim against the University, R2 – He denies knowledge of the previous claim – Tribunal invited to draw inferences from what are said to be evasive answers to statutory questionnaire
Tribunal dismisses claim, accepting that R1 had no knowledge of the previous proceedings and not drawing inferences from the answers to questionnaire – Costs awarded
Held, dismissing appeal:
(1) Tribunal entitled to dismiss claim – Answers to questionnaire did not justify inference of discrimination
(2) Tribunal entitled to award costs – Claim had been misconceived from the start, since there was no evidence supporting C’s suspicions, and a deposit order had been made
Judges:
Underhill P J
Citations:
[2010] UKEAT 0283 – 10 – 2004
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434908