The plaintiff was used to going swimming. He was 60. He complained that whereas his wife, of the same age was admitted free, he had had to pay .75p. He claimed sex discrimination.
Held: Though his claim failed, Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V-C said: ‘it is not permissible for a defendant in such a case to seek to define the section of the public to which it offers services in terms which are themselves discriminatory in terms of gender. If this were not so it would be lawful, for example, to provide free travel for men but not for women on the ground that the facility of free travel is only being provided for a section of the public comprising men. Whatever else may be meant by a ‘section of the public,’ in my judgment it cannot mean a class defined by reference to sex or, under the Race Relations Act 1976, by reference to race.’ The council’s less favourable treatment of a man than a woman was not ‘on the ground of his sex’ and that there had accordingly been no direct discrimination contrary to section l(l)(a). The condition which the local authority applied to persons resorting to their swimming pool that in order to qualify for free admission they should be of pensionable age was, as the court held, a condition applied equally to men and women.
Sir Nicolas Browne-Wilkinson V.-C., Parker and Nourse LJJ
[1990] QB 61
Sex Discrimination Act 1975 29
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination
Leading Case
Updated: 11 November 2021; Ref: scu.264030
