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

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


Mcmullen QC J


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


Bailii, EAT


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

Cited by:

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

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238799