E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal failed. English law may be at fault because it made no allowance for any justification of direct discrimination. Whether the discrimination was unlawful depended upon whether race was the criterion applied as the basis for discrimination. The motive for discriminating according to that criterion was not relevant. The test as used would not necessarily identify as jewish the same people who others might ordinarily identify as such from other criteria, but that did not make the result non-discriminatory on racial grounds. The matrilinear descent test was a test of ethnic origin and racially discriminatory.
Lord Mance said: ‘Finally, I also consider it to be consistent with the underlying policy of section 1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976 that it should apply in the present circumstances. The policy is that individuals should be treated as individuals, and not assumed to be like other members of a group: R (European Roma Rights Centre) v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening)  2 AC 1, paras 82 and 90, per Baroness Hale of Richmond and R (Gillan) v Comr of Police of the Metropolis  2 AC 307, paras 44 and 90, per Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. To treat individual applicants to a school less favourably than others, because of the happenstance of their respective ancestries, is not to treat them as individuals, but as members in a group defined in a manner unrelated to their individual attributes.’
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, Lord Mance, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony
 ELR 26,  UKSC 15, Times 17-Dec-2009, UKSC 2009/0105,  IRLR 136,  PTSR 147,  1 All ER 319,  2 WLR 153, 27 BHRC 656,  2 AC 728
Bailii, SC, SC Summ, Balii Summary
Race Relations Act 1976 1
England and Wales
See also – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 14-Oct-2009
The claimant had successfully challenged the policy of the school as racially discriminatory. He now sought an ancillary order that the respondents should not be allowed to request their costs from the defendant’s appeal whatever the outcome, the . .
See also – E, Regina (On the Application of) v Governing Body Of JFS and Another CA 10-Jul-2009
See also – E, Regina (On the Application of) v The Governing Body of JFS and Another CA 25-Jun-2009
E challenged the admissions policy of a school which admitted by preference children acknowledged to be Jewish by the Office of their Rabbi. His mother being Jewish by conversion in a progressive synagogue, E was excluded. The claimant suggested . .
See Also – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 16-Jul-2008
Application for leave to appeal. . .
See also – E v The Governing Body of JFS and Another Admn 3-Jul-2008
The court considered the impact of secular discrimination policy on admissions policies of religious schools.
Held: A school admissions policy which gave priority to children of their designated faith did not discriminate unlawfully either . .
Cited – Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee HL 24-Mar-1982
A private school had refused to admit the claimant, a sikh, because he would be unable to wear the school uniform. He claimed racial discrimination. The school denied that being a Sikh was a membership of a racial or ethnic group.
Held: Sikhs . .
Cited – Orphanos v Queen Mary College HL 1985
The complainant, a Cypriot, argued that the respondent college’s practice, determined by government policy, of charging higher fees to ‘overseas’ students than to ‘home’ students indirectly discriminated against him on the ground of his race. . .
Cited – Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police v Khan HL 11-Oct-2001
The claimant was a police sergeant. After many years he had not been promoted. He began proceedings for race discrimination. Whilst those were in course, he applied for a post elsewhere. That force wrote to his own requesting a reference. In the . .
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 – 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 . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Defence v Elias CA 10-Oct-2006
The claimant said that a scheme drawn by the defendant for compensating British civilians interned by the Japanese during the second world war was indirectly discriminatory on racial grounds by requiring a national origin link with the UK. She had . .
Cited – J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd EAT 19-Jun-1981
The claimant worked part time. She said that she should have been paid at the same rate as her male full time equivalents, the failure being incompatible with her rights under Article 119.
Held: The scope of Article 119 EEC covers not only . .
Cited – James v Eastleigh Borough Council HL 14-Jun-1990
Result Decides Dscrimination not Motive
The Council had allowed free entry to its swimming pools to those of pensionable age (ie women of 60 and men of 65). A 61 year old man successfully complained of sexual discrimination.
Held: The 1975 Act directly discriminated between men and . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Education and Science, Ex parte Keating 1985
Cited – Pothecary Witham Weld (A Firm) and Another v Bullimore and Another EAT 29-Mar-2010
EAT VICTIMISATION DISCRIMINATION
SEX DISCRIMINATION – Burden of Proof
Ex-employee given unfavourable reference – Claim that terms of reference were partly on account of her having previously brought . .
Cited – HM Land Registry v Grant EAT 15-Apr-2010
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISM
HARASSMENT – Conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 . .
Cited – Johns and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Derby City Council and Another Admn 28-Feb-2011
The claimants had acted as foster carers for several years, but challenged a potential decision to discontinue that when, as committed Christians, they refused to sign to agree to treat without differentiation any child brought to them who might be . .
Cited – Bull and Bull v Hall and Preddy CA 10-Feb-2012
The appellants owned a guesthouse. They appealed from being found in breach of the Regulations. They had declined to honour a booking by the respondents of a room upon learning that they were a homosexual couple. The appellants had said that they . .
Cited – Bull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Cited – Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
Cited – Z and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Hackney London Borough Council and Another SC 16-Oct-2020
Housing Orthodox Jewish Only not Discriminatory
Hackney had statutory housing functions as to allocating social housing. It also nominated applicants to properties owned by housing associations, including AIHA, which only accepted for such nominations households belonging to the Orthodox Jewish . .
Cited – Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and Others SC 10-Oct-2018
The court considered whether a power of appeal to the existed.
Held: A power did exist under FETO, and the CANI having mistakenly excluded a power to appeal the Supreme Court could nevertheless hear it. Both appeals were allowed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.384144