Appeal against refusal of protective costs order. The claimant said that she had been discriminated against when she was refused permission to wear her christian cross with her uniform.
Kay, Lloyd, May LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1025
England and Wales
Appeal from – Eweida v British Airways Plc EAT 20-Nov-2008
EAT RELIGION OR BELIEF DISCRIMINATION
The claimant was a Christian who objected to BA’s policy of requiring jewellery to be worn concealed by the uniform. There were exceptions for those whose religions . .
Cited – Corner House Research, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry CA 1-Mar-2005
The applicant sought to bring an action to challenge new rules on approval of export credit guarantees. The company was non-profit and founded to support investigation of bribery. It had applied for a protected costs order to support the . .
Cited – Goodson v HM Coroner for Bedfordshire and Luton and Another (No 2) CA 12-Oct-2005
The applicant intended to appeal refusal of her challenge to the verdict of the coroner. For the first time at appeal she sought a protective costs order.
Held: The Corner House case established that a request for a protective costs order . .
Cited – Regina (Bullmore) v West Hertfordshire NHS Trust 2007
Cited – Morgan and Another v Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd CA 2-Mar-2009
The claimants had alleged that smells from a composting site near their homes constituted a private nuisance. Following the discharge of an interim injunction, Judge Seymour ordered the claimants to pay the costs of the injunction proceedings. The . .
Cited – Compton, Regina (on the Application of) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust CA 1-Jul-2008
Appeals against protective costs orders. . .
Cited – Buglife – The Invertebrate Conservation Trust, Regina (on the Application of) v Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Corp CA 4-Nov-2008
The court considered an application for a protective costs order in judicial review proceedings in environmental law cases.
Held: The central decision was Corner House Research, but that was to be applied purposively and not rigidly. It was . .
See Also (Costs) – Eweida v British Airways Plc CA 12-Feb-2010
The court was asked whether, by adopting a staff dress code which forbade the wearing of visible neck adornment and so prevented the appellant, a Christian, from wearing with her uniform a small, visible cross, British Airways (BA) indirectly . .
Cited – Austin and Others v Miller Argent (South Wales) Ltd CA 29-Jul-2011
The claimants appealed against refusal of a Group Litigation Order (GLO). Over 500 parties wished to claim in nuisance caused by open cast mining operations conducted by the defendants.
Held: The appeals failed. The making of a GLO is a matter . .
At CA (Costs) – Eweida And Chaplin v The United Kingdom ECHR 12-Apr-2011
Statement of Facts and questions to the parties . .
At CA (Costs) – Eweida And Others v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jan-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.376169