

Links: Home \| swarblaw - law discussions		swarb.co.uk - law index These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases. Â
		Discrimination - From: 2003 To: 2003 This page lists 342 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â D Woodrup v London Borough of Southwark [2003] IRLR 111 2003 CA Simon Brown LJ Employment, Discrimination Simon Brown LJ said: "As will readily be seen, it provides (perhaps rather surprisingly) that someone is to be treated as disabled even though they are not in fact disabled (even, that is, where they suffer no substantial adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities) if, without the medical treatment they are in fact receiving, they would suffer that disability. One asks the question whether, if treatment were stopped at the relevant date, would the person then, notwithstanding such benefit as had been obtained from prior treatment, have an impairment which would have the relevant adverse effect?" and in a "deduced effect" case "clear medical evidence would be expected, not just the Applicant's own testimony". Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3(2)(a) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â North Devon Homes Housing Association v Brazier [2003] HLR 905; [2003] EWHC 574 (QB) 2003 QBD David Steel J Housing, Discrimination The tenant was guilty of nuisance, but her misbehaviour was attributable to her psychotic state – her "disability" within the 1995 Act. Held: Though a very pertinent factor to be taken into account may be a housing authority's obligations to other tenants on a housing estate and the interests of those other tenants, though the situation may be affected by the Act when the tenant suffers some mental impairment: "on the facts of the present case, the issue is one of fact: whether the breach of the tenancy terms was caused by the disability". Since the evidence showed that the tenant "was unable [due to her disability] to prevent herself from behaving in [the objectionable] manner" the 1995 Act was engaged, and the landlord had to establish sufficient justification to satisfy section 24(1)(b) of that Act if an order for possession was to be made. The 1995 Act did not bar all evictions but "only those which were not justified in the specific circumstances set out in section 24 and it "furnishes its own code for justified eviction which requires a higher threshold", a threshold higher than that in the Housing Act 1988. Housing Act 1988 - Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Wallington, S and B Car Hire Kent Ltd v S and B Car Hire Ltd, Painter, Wallington EAT/240/03 & EAT246/03 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EAT ] Â Fleming v Halus and others (Sectarian Harassment/Religious Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 174_98 6 Jan 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Fleming v Halus and others (Sectarian Harassment/Religious Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 2 6 Jan 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Leacock v Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (Victimisation) [2003] NIFET 3 6 Jan 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Morrison v Compass UK Ltd [2003] NIFET 1812_02 8 Jan 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â Leacock v Department of Agriculture and Rural Development; FENI 8-Jan-2003 - [2003] NIFET 47_00 Â London Underground v A O Famakinwa, Ms Gormally EAT/1488/01 13 Jan 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â Zaman v Qinetiq EAT/440/02; [2003] EAT 440_02_1301; [2003] UKEAT 440_02_1301 13 Jan 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Qua v John Ford Morrison (Solicitors) Times, 06 February 2003; [2003] ICR 482; [2003] UKEAT 884_01_1401; EAT/884/01; [2003] IRLR 184 14 Jan 2003 EAT Mrs Recorder Cox QC, Edmondson and Palmer Employment, Discrimination The claimant appealed the refusal of her claim for a finding that her dismissal was automatically unfair. She had been employed for less than a year, and had taken several absences to care for her child. She claimed protection saying that her absences had been 'dependants leave'. Held: When considering such a claim, the tribunal should look at an ordered series of precise questions, namely how many absences and when, was an appropriate reason given, saying how long might be needed, and other factors. A failure to meet the section requirements would defeat any claim that a consequent dismissal was automatically unfair. In general, the right was for all employees and to take reasonable time off, but it was for time to make arrangements for care, not to provide the care themselves (at least in the first year of employment), and temporary assistance should be made available to an employee. Time could be taken to make longer term arrangements. The time was what was reasonably necessary in that employee's individual circumstances. In this case however the triubunal had failed to distinguish between the various absences and teir purpose, and had therefore erred. The case was remitted for re-hearing. Mrs Recorder Cox said: "By way of general observation, and having regard to the Directive and in particular the use of the words "force majeure" when referring to time off from work during working hours, we agree with the Tribunal's conclusions at paragraph 22 as to the nature of the absences contemplated in this section. The statutory right is, in our view, a right given to all employees to be permitted to take a reasonable amount of time off work during working hours in order to deal with a variety of unexpected or sudden events affecting their dependants, as defined, and in order to make any necessary longer-term arrangements for their care . . The right to take time off to " . . provide" assistance etc. at sub-section (1)(a) does not in our view enable employees to take off in order of themselves to provide care for a sick child, beyond the reasonable amount necessary to enable them to deal with the immediate crisis." Time off is to be permitted to enable an employee to make longer term arrangements for the care of a dependant, for example, by employing a temporary carer or making appropriate arrangement with friends or relatives: "Subsection (1)(d) would include, for example, time off to deal with problems caused by a child-minder failing to arrive or a nursery or playgroup closing unexpectedly." and: "The right is a right to a "reasonable" amount of time off, in order to take action which is "necessary". In determining whether action was necessary, factors to be taken into account will include, for example, the nature of the incident which has occurred, the closeness of the relationship between the employee and the particular dependant and the extent to which anyone else was available to help out . . We consider that, in determining what is a reasonable amount of time off work, an employer should always take account of the individual circumstances of the employee seeking to exercise the right. It may be that, in the vast majority of cases, no more than a few hours or, at most, one or possibly two days would be regarded as reasonable to deal with the particular problem which has arisen. Parliament chose not to limit the entitlement to a certain amount of time per year and/or per case, as they could have done pursuant to Clause 3.2 of the Directive. It is not possible to specify maximum periods of time which are reasonable in any particular circumstances. This will depend on the individual circumstances in each case and it will always be a question of fact for a tribunal as to what was reasonable in every situation." Employment Rights Act 1996 57A - Maternity and Parental Leave Regulations 1999 (1999 No 3312) - Parental Leave Directive 96/34/EC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â A Bosepa Gonzalvez v P J Diment and A M Diment T/A Meson Don Felipe EAT/870/02 16 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â C Readhead v Hanover Housing Association EAT/487/02 16 Jan 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â A Bosepa Gonzalvez v P J Diment and A M Diment T/A Meson Don Felipe EAT/870/02 16 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Â C Readhead v Hanover Housing Association EAT/487/02 16 Jan 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â S M Mullins v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT/1440/01 23 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â S M Mullins v the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis EAT/1440/01 23 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Beart v HM Prison Service [2003] EWCA Civ 119; [2003] ICR 1068; [2003] IRLR 238 23 Jan 2003 CA peter Gibson LJ, may LJ, Scott Baker LJ Employment, Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Underwood and Croxson v C J Johnston EAT/26/02 24 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Underwood and Croxson v C J Johnston EAT/26/02 24 Jan 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Afolabi v Southwark London Borough Council Times, 30 January 2003; Gazette, 20 March 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 15; [2003] IRLR 220; [2003] ICR 800 24 Jan 2003 CA Peter Gibson, Sedley and Rix LJJ Discrimination, Employment The claimant applied for leave to bring an action for race discrimination nine years after the acts complained of. Leave was granted. The respondent said the tribunal should have heard the complaint first before deciding to extend time. Held: The discretion given was to act as the tribunal thought just and equitable. There was no checklist to be gone through. Each party would be equally disadvantaged by the delay, and the tribunal's decision was not wrong in law. Peter Gibson LJ, with whom Sedley and Rix LJJ agreed on this issue, said: "Nor do I accept that the ET erred in not going through the matters listed in s. 33(3) of the 1980 Act. Parliament limited the requirement to consider those matters to actions relating to personal injuries and death. Whilst I do not doubt the utility of considering such a checklist (or that in CPR 3.9(1)) in many cases, I do not think it can be elevated into a requirement on the ET to go through such a list in every case, provided of course that no significant factor has been left out of account by the ET in exercising its discretion." Race Relations Act 1976 68(1)(a) - Limitation Act 1980 33 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Shrubsole v The Governing Body of Wellington School [2003] EAT 328_02_1802; [2003] UKEAT 328_02_1802; EAT/328/02 28 Jan 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Hand QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Ayobiojo v London Borough of Camden [2003] EAT 510_02_0302; [2003] UKEAT 510_02_0302 3 Feb 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dr C C Anya v University of Oxford Dr S G Roberts EAT/294/02; [2003] EAT 0294_02_0402; [2003] UKEAT 0294_02_0402 4 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â S Johns v the Governing Body of Elm Park School EAT/578/02 5 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - (no sub-topic). [ EATn ] Â Â Prince's Trust and others v Beckford; EAT 6-Feb-2003 - [2003] UKEAT 303_01_0602; EAT/303/01 Â B A Williams v Gray Security Services, Senate Sopport Services EAT/1082/01 10 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EAT ] Â B A Willia v Gray Security Services Senate Sopport Services EAT/1082/01 10 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â P Carrasi v Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs EAT/187/02 10 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â The Council of the City of Sunderland v Newsome EAT/36/02; [2003] EAT 36_02_2904; [2003] UKEAT 36_02_2904 11 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Jenkins v Legoland Windsor Park Ltd [2003] UKEAT 1155_02_1202 12 Feb 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination The claimant who had a withered arm, took on employment with the respondent. He was given a long service award in the form of a model with a withered arm. This upset him, and he was off work for a long time with depression. He said the tribunal had failed to see the upsetting nature of the depiction which singled him out. The discrimination was not that he was shown with a withered arm, but that he was not carrying a clipboard. Held: The tribunal "did not ask themselves the question as to whether the failure to depict him with a work related item, thereby highlighting his disability amounted to an act of discrimination." and the matter was remitted to a fresh tribunal. However the allegation of constructive dismissal was not remitted. [ Bailii ] Â S Lerica v British Telecommunications Plc, Kelly Services (Uk) Limited, Imagination Ltd EAT/1492/01 13 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Others [ EATn ] Â S Lerica v British Telecommunications Plc Kelly Services (Uk) Limited Imagination Ltd EAT/1492/01 13 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Others Â N Jones v Moorcroft Manor Ltd EAT/364/02; [2003] EAT 0364_02_1402; [2003] UKEAT 0364_02_1402 14 Feb 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Plender QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â N Jones v Moorcroft Manor Ltd EAT/364/02 14 Feb 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Plender Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Britax Rumbold Limited v G Ogunsanya EAT/843/02 14 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other Â The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constatabulary v S A Mclachlan EAT/562/02; [2003] EAT 0562_02_1402; [2003] UKEAT 0562_02_1402 14 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Comparison [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â The Chief Constable of Cambridgeshire Constatabulary v S A Mclachlan EAT/562/02 14 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Comparison. [ EATn ] Â Britax Rumbold Limited v G Ogunsanya EAT/843/02 14 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other [ EATn ] Â Yashin Essa v Laing Ltd Times, 07 April 2003; Gazette, 09 May 2003; [2003] UKEAT 0697_01_1702; [2003] ICR 1110 17 Feb 2003 EAT Serota QC Discrimination The claimant appealed against the level of damages awarded on his claim for race discrimination on the basis that he had not shown that his hurt feelings were not shown to have been reasonably forseeable. Held: The tribunal had erred. It was natural and invitable that humiliation and hurt would follow discrimination. The claimant had only to show that his hurt was caused by the discrimination. He did not additionally have to establish that those feelings could have been foreseen by the defendant. Race Relations Act 1976 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â E Mensah v Heatherwood and Wrexham Park Hospitals NHS Trust and others EAT/1393/01 18 Feb 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. 1 Citers [ EAT ] Â A Murrain v London Borough of Hackney EAT/0114/02 20 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â A Murrain v London Borough of Hackney EAT/0114/02 20 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Regina (Purja) v Ministry of Defence; Regina (Lama) v Same Times, 10 March 2003; [2003] EWHC 445 (Admin) 21 Feb 2003 QBD Sullivan J Human Rights, Armed Forces, Discrimination The applicants served as Gurkha soldiers with the army. They claimed that the pensions they received, being substantially less than those paid to other servicemen were discriminatory. Held: The positions of a retired serviceman in England and one in Nepal were so different as to make the attempted comparison invalid. A better comparison was with retired servicemen in India. European Court of Human Rights 14 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Patterson v Legal Services Commission [2003] UKEAT 1320_01_2102 21 Feb 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Zaman v Qinetiq (Formerly Defence Evaluation Research Agency Cda Section) [2003] EAT 0440_02_2102; [2003] UKEAT 0440_02_2102 21 Feb 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Meyer v Department of Agriculture and Another [2003] NIFET 181_97 21 Feb 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â A, B v C EAT/357/02 21 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A B v C EAT/357/02 21 Feb 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Bentwood Bros (Manchester) Ltd v Shepherd [2003] EWCA Civ 380 27 Feb 2003 CA Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; HL 27-Feb-2003 - [2003] UKHL 11; Times, 04 March 2003; [2003] ICR 337; Gazette, 10 July 2003; [2003] IRLR 285; [2003] NI 174; [2003] 2 All ER 26 Â the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v P A Ledlie EAT/1215/01 4 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT/755/02; [2003] EAT 0755_02_1403; [2003] UKEAT 0755_02_1403; [2003] IRLR 566 4 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination, Employment EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation. Held: The employer's appeal was dismissed. "There must be many cases in which the disabled person has been placed at a substantial disadvantage in the workplace, but in which the employer does not know what it ought to do to ameliorate that disadvantage without making enquiries. To say that a failure to make those enquiries would not amount to a breach of the duty imposed on employers by section 6(1) would render section 6(1) practicably unworkable in many cases." The Trust was in breach of the duty imposed on it by section 6(1). The claimant appealed rejection of her claim for having been victimised for her disability, and the compensation awarded. Workmen were provided with dust masks as they demolished a nearby wall at work, but she had not been. She became unfit for full time work. Unsuccessful attempts were made to ease her back into work. The Trust's officers had not considered whether she was to be considered disabled, and she was told to return to work or be dismissed. The Trust claimed that the Tribunal had put an improper gloss on the statute. Held: The appeal failed. The attempted phased return to work did not mean that an assessment was not required. As to the need to make enquiries "A proper assessment of what is required to eliminate the disabled person’s disadvantage is therefore a necessary part of the duty imposed by section 6(1) since that duty cannot be complied with unless the employer makes a proper assessment of what needs to be done." The tribunal properly decided that: "her compensation will have to be discounted to reflect the possibility that an assessment might have established that no steps could reasonably have been taken to ameliorate her disadvantage." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis v P A Ledlie EAT/1215/01 4 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect Â Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd v Alison Elliot EAT/648/02; [2003] EAT 0648_02_0503; [2003] UKEAT 0648_02_0503 5 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd EAT/18/03; Times, 16 April 2003; Gazette, 05 June 2003; [2003] EAT 18_03_0304; [2003] UKEAT 18_03_0304; [2003] ICR 1205 6 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination The claimant sought compenstion for sex discrimination. She appealed a finding of a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: The new provisions included reference to the Code of Practice issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, which provided that the employer should provide a transparent system for setting pay so as to encourage equal treatment. The tribunal set out guidelines now to be followed under the new rules for determining whether discrimination had occurred, emphasising the need to follow the two stage procedure carefully. Inferences drawn against the employer under the new sections might also inform decisions under the 1970 Act. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 56A 63A - Sex Discrimination (Indirect Discrimination and Burden of Proof) Regulations 2001 (2001 No 2660) - Equal Pay Act 1970 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â British Telecommunications Plc v A Reid EAT/913/02 7 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â Ms S Witney v Parisa Limited T/A Parisa Wine Shop EAT/208/02 7 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct. [ EATn ] Â British Telecommunications Plc v A Reid EAT/913/02 7 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark [2003] EAT 1285_02_0703; [2003] UKEAT 1285_02_0703 7 Mar 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination The applicant was employed by the respondent and sought leave to work for the CAB for a year, requesting a sabbatical. Leave was refused. He applied to the employment tribunal, but objected that the chairman had, in a previous case, indicated his strong dislike of the applicant. The chairman refused to recuse himself. Held: The proposed appeal was not on a question of law, and the EAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. "The claim based on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Directive 97/81 EC seems to me to have been entirely misconceived. Those provisions were designed to protect part-time workers from being discriminated against when compared with full-time workers. They do not give a right to an employee who wants to go and work for somebody else to insist that his original employer continues to employ him part-time. " Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Clifford v Homefirst Trust (Time Limit) [2003] NIFET 4 7 Mar 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Ann Clifford v Homefirst Trust [2003] NIFET 375_02 7 Mar 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â S Witney v Parisa Limited T/A Parisa Wine Shop EAT/208/02 7 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â J Whiley v Christopher Clarke Workshops Ltd EAT/1403/01 11 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other. [ EATn ] Â Robertson v Bexley Community Centre [2003] IRLR 434; [2003] EWCA Civ 576 11 Mar 2003 CA Auld LJ, Chadwick LJ and Newman J Employment, Discrimination The claimant brought his claim in discrimination, but it was out of time. The employer appealed against a decision to extend the time for him to file his complaint. Held: A tribunal has a very wide discretion in the area of whether to extend time for a complaint of race or sex discrimination to be laid, and is entitled to consider anything that it considers relevant. The court of appeal can only interfere with the exercise of a discretion if it is plainly wrong and there has been some error of law or principle. In this case the court re-instated the employment tribunal's decision. Auld LJ set out the principles to be applied when considering the exercise of its discretion to extend time: "The Tribunal, when considering the exercise of its discretion, has a wide ambit within which to reach a decision. If authority is needed for that proposition, it is to be found in Daniel" and "It is also of importance to note that the time limits are exercised strictly in employment and industrial cases. When tribunals consider their discretion to consider a claim out of time on just and equitable grounds there is no presumption that they should do so unless they can justify failure to exercise the discretion. Quite the reverse. A tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time. So, the exercise of discretion is the exception rather than the rule. It is of a piece with those general propositions that an Appeal Tribunal may not allow an appeal against a Tribunal's refusal to consider an application out of time in the exercise of its discretion merely because the Appeal Tribunal, if it were deciding the issue at first instance, would have formed a different view. As I have already indicated, such an appeal should only succeed where the Appeal Tribunal can identify an error of law or principle, making the decision of the Tribunal below plainly wrong in this respect." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â S Milner v the University of Greenwich EAT/882/02 11 Mar 2003 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Mccormack v Royal Group of Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust (Striking Out) [2003] NIFET 5 11 Mar 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Ms S Milner v the University of Greenwich EAT/882/02 11 Mar 2003 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Preston Borough Council, Geoffrey Driver v S Harrison Geoffrey Driver S Harrison, Preston Borough Council EAT/154/02; EAT/153/02; [2003] EAT 0153_02_3103; [2003] UKEAT 0153_02_3103 11 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â J Smith v Islington Council EAT/409/02 12 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Yellow Pages Limited v David Garton EAT/375/02; [2003] EAT 0375_02_1203; [2003] UKEAT 0375_02_1203 12 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Ms J Smith v Islington Council EAT/409/02 12 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â T Lammy v HEP Sections Ltd EAT/784/02; [2003] EAT 784_02_2005; [2003] UKEAT 784_02_2005 13 Mar 2003 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Company X v A, B EAT/437/02 14 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Company X v A B EAT/437/02 14 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â Deman v Association of University Teachers [2003] EWCA Civ 329; Gazette, 22 May 2003; A1/2002/1022 14 Mar 2003 CA Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Tuckey Mr Justice Wall Discrimination The appellant challenged dismissal of his claim for race discrimination. In the midst of a dispute with the employer University. He was dissatisfied with the support given by his union. He was refused legal assistance save through a firm of lawyers who acted for the union. Held: the Tribunal were obliged to give a clear explanation of why they had not drawn an inference of race discrimination. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Amica v Rhone Poulenc Chemicals Ltd EAT/1292/96; [2003] EAT 1292_96_1903 19 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Gamestec Leisure Ltd v B Magee EAT/419/02; [2003] EAT 0419_02_2003; [2003] UKEAT 0419_02_2003 20 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal including substantial other reason. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Summer Bridge Doors Ltd v K Pickering EAT/1088/02; [2003] EAT 1088_02_2103; [2003] UKEAT 1088_02_2103 21 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â P Jefferson v Wolseley Centres Ltd EAT/641/02 24 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â I Chaudhery v London Borough of Newham EAT/237/02 24 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â The Royal National Thatre Board Ltd v S Collins EAT/642/02 24 Mar 2003 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other Â P Jefferson v Wolseley Centres Ltd EAT/641/02; [2003] EAT 0641_02_2403; [2003] UKEAT 0641_02_2403 24 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Dr J B Ilangaratne v British Medical Association Dr Richard Smith EAT/1025/01; [2003] UKEAT 1025_01_2403 24 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â I Chaudhery v London Borough of Newham EAT/237/02 24 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Jurisdiction Â M Rubery v H M Prison Service Agency EAT/418/02 25 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â Kensington and Chelsea London Borough Council v O'Sullivan and another Times, 27 March 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 371 25 Mar 2003 CA Aldous, Waller, Arden LJJ Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights The council granted a tenancy to the husband many years ago. At various times the couple split up then came back together. The husband was rehoused, but at the time misled the council to say his wife was not living in the flat. When the council sought a possession order, she alleged the action was discriminatory, and breached her right to respect for private and family life. Held: At the time, it was common practice to grant a tenancy in the name of one spouse (the husband). The parties lived separate lives, even if in the same house. If it had know of the misrepresentation the council would not have transferred the tenancy for the husband. The council acted on the basis of the facts known to it. The decision was reasonable and the possession order stood. The husband had not been treated differently than she would have been. European Convention on Human Rights 8 14 [ Bailii ] Â M Rubery v H M Prison Service Agency EAT/418/02 25 Mar 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â M A Haines Lee v Relate Berkshire EAT/1458/01 27 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Comparison Â M A Haines Lee v Relate Berkshire EAT/1458/01 27 Mar 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Comparison [ EATn ] Â Hubbard v Derry City Council (Religious and Political Discrimination/Sex Discrimination/Race) [2003] NIFET 324_99 28 Mar 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Hubbard v Derry City Council [2003] NIFET 6 28 Mar 2003 FENI Discrimination Religious and Political Discrimination/Sex Discrimination/Race [ Bailii ] Â Ms E Fry v Ministry of Defence EAT/146/02 1 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive. [ EATn ] Â Dr R Dave v Dr E W R Robinska EAT/950/02 1 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring Discrimination Â Dr R Dave v Dr E W R Robinska EAT/950/02 1 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â E Fry v Ministry of Defence EAT/146/02 1 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Crawford v Police Service for Northern Ireland [2003] NIFET 402_02 4 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â White v Peugeot [2003] NIFET 546_01 4 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Meyer v Department of Agriculture and others (Time Limit) [2003] NIFET 1 4 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â A Taylor v Dept of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), Sherwood International Plc, Sema Ltd EAT/625/02 7 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â K Hanly M De Bergolis v Norinchukin International Plc EAT/448/02 & EAT/449/02; UKEAT/0448/02 & EAT/0449/02 7 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect EAT Procedural Issues - Employment Tribunal. EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. 1 Cites [ EATn ] Â A Taylor v Dept of Environment Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) Sherwood International Plc Sema Ltd EAT/625/02 7 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Â Fraser v Queen'S University of Belfast (Religious and Political Discrimination/Sex Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 7 8 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Fraser v Queen'S University of Belfast (Religious and Political Discrimination/Sex Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 209_00 8 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mccormack v Royal Group of Hospitals Health and Social Services Trust [2003] NIFET 222_01 9 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â XXX v YYY, Z EAT/413/02; [2003] UKEAT 0729_01_0904; EAT/729/01 9 Apr 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Daniel Ree v Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd EAT/35/03 9 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other. [ EATn ] Â Daniel Ree v Redrow Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd EAT/35/03; [2003] EAT 0035_03_0904; [2003] UKEAT 0035_03_0904 9 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Other [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â I Johnson v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust EAT/1331/01 10 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â D H Kirton v Tetrosyl Limited Times, 28 April 2003 10 Apr 2003 CA Pill, Scott Baker, LJJ, Wilson J Discrimination The claimant suffered asymptotic prostate cancer, but after a prostatectomy, had suffered urinary incontinence. He appealed a finding of the tribunal and EAT that his condition was not a disability within the Act. Held: The Schedule enlarged upon the definition of disability to give statutory protection to those with progressive conditions. The urinary incontinece was a consequence of that condition, and was within the Act. The situation would differ from case to case. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 8(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Johnson v Queen Elizabeth Hospital NHS Trust EAT/1331/01 10 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Â C E Johnson v Bank of England EAT/334/02 10 Apr 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Johnson v Bank of England EAT/334/02; [2003] EAT 0334_02_1004 10 Apr 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment [ Bailii ] Â C Harrison v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority Formley Lfcda G Luke EAT/477/02; [2003] EAT 0477_02_1305; [2003] UKEAT 0477_02_1305 11 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Stewart v Dunlop [2003] NIFET 446_99 14 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Stewart v Dunlop (Religious Discrimination/Unfair Dismissal) [2003] NIFET 8 14 Apr 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Anyanwu v London Borough of Hackney [2003] EAT 0295_02_1504; [2003] UKEAT 0295_02_1504 15 Apr 2003 EAT Mitting J Employment, Discrimination, Damages The claimant had been found to be subject to unlawful sex discrimination, but had had an award of nil damages. She appealed. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd Times, 02 May 2003; Gazette, 03 July 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 544; [2002] ICR 1256 15 Apr 2003 CA Lord Justice Simon Brown, (Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal Civil Division), Lord Justice Dyson and Lord Justice Scott Baker Employment, Discrimination The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay. Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex discrimination lies initially on the employee. The burden of proof in indirect discrimination cases should be approached in the same way irrespective of whether they are brought under article 119 (141), under the 1975 Act, or under the 1970 Act. "It is for the claimant to provide the necessary statistics, to show on the balance of probabilities a disproportionate adverse impact and thereby establish a prima facie case that she had suffered indirect discrimination, and that she had failed to do so." Equal Pay Act 1970 1 - Council Directive 75/117EC (the Equal Pay Directive). 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â B R Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Town Fire Authority Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service the Secretary of State for the Home Department EAT/968/02 29 Apr 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Working Time Regulations 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Royal National Theatre Board Ltd v Collins [2003] EAT 0642_02_2904; [2003] UKEAT 0642_02_2904; EAT/642/02 29 Apr 2003 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Employment, Discrimination Appeal against finding of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4 5(2)(b) 6(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest and others [2003] EAT 1352_01_3004; [2003] UKEAT 1352_01_3004 30 Apr 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Wilson T/A Wilson's Greengrocers v Knight EAT/1022/02; [2003] EAT 1022_02_3004; [2003] UKEAT 1022_02_3004 30 Apr 2003 EAT His Honour Judge J Burke QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Pregnancy and discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Surrey County Council v Devica Tilak EAT/990/02 1 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction Â J Mingeley v A Pennock and F Ivory T/A Amber Cars EAT/1170/02; [2003] EAT 1170_02_0906; [2003] UKEAT 1170_02_0906 1 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Prospective employees Race Relations Act 1976 78(1) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Surrey County Council v Devica Tilak EAT/990/02 1 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Jurisdiction. [ EATn ] Â S Mallon v Corus Constructions and Industrial ( A Division of Corous UK Ltd EAT/857/02 2 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification Â S Mallon v Corus Constructions and Industrial ( A Division of Corus UK Ltd) EAT/857/02 2 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â Loughran v Agricultural Research Institute (Ni) [2003] NIFET 415_00 6 May 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â D Law v Pace Micro Technology Plc EAT/1020/02 7 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â D Law v Pace Micro Technology Plc EAT/1020/02 7 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification Â S J Chinyanga v Buffer Bear Limited EAT/300/02; [2003] EAT 0300_02_0805; [2003] UKEAT 0300_02_0805 8 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge McMullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Haden Building Management Ltd v Annette Smith EAT/145/03 8 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Â Haden Building Management Ltd v Annette Smith EAT/145/03 8 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â Kemmeni v The Morse Group Ltd and others [2003] EWCA Civ 767 8 May 2003 CA Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Stewart v Crawford [2003] NIFET 221_98 9 May 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Teruel-Fanning v Park View Rest Homes Ltd [2003] EAT 638_02_0905; [2003] UKEAT 638_02_0905; EAT/638/02 9 May 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Hand QC Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Henry v London Borough of Newham [2003] EAT 0991_02_2907; EAT/991/02 13 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Odenore v Associated Nursing Homes Ltd EAT/1112/02; [2003] EAT 1112_02_1405; [2003] UKEAT 1112_02_1405 14 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â British Medical Association v Chaudhary [2003] EWCA Civ 645; Times, 20 May 2003; [2003] ICR 1512 15 May 2003 CA Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Latham Health Professions, Discrimination The claimant had sought registration as a specialist medical practitioner by the respondent. His complaint that the crtiria used to reject his claim were discriminatory had been rejected by the employment tribunal and EAT on the basis that they had no jurisdiction. Held: The section and rules establishing the Training authority clearly reserved to that authority exclusive jurisdiction, and the tribunal had been right to decline to hear it. Race Relations Act 1976 54(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Johan Wight Maciver v Capita Business Services Ltd EATS/0065/02 16 May 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (President) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Vanessa Brennan v American Express Services Europe Ltd EAT/0623/02; [2003] EAT 0623_02_1507; [2003] UKEAT 0623_02_1507 19 May 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mangera v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 801 19 May 2003 CA Armed Forces, Discrimination, Human Rights Race Relations Act 1976 [ Bailii ] Â Mangera v Ministry of Defence Times, 12 July 2003; Gazette, 28 August 2003 19 May 2003 CA Peter Gibson, Tuckey, Buxton LJJ Discrimination, Armed Forces, Employment, Human Rights The claimant was employed by the Army. He claimed that he was racially discriminated against because the army refused to provide him with Halal meat. Held: The 1976 Act first required the applicant to have exhausted the Army's own internal grievance procedures. He had not done so. The employment tribunal therefore had no jurisdiction to hear the complaint. Article 6 could not be prayed in aid to give the tribunal jurisdiction. European Convention on Human Rights 6 - Race Relations Act 1976 4(2) 75(8) 75(9) - Race Relations (Complaints to Employment Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1997 (1997 No 2161) 2 Â Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v J D Rutherford, S Bentley, Harvest Town Circle Ltd (In Liquidation) EAT/1029/02 22 May 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v J D Rutherford S Bentley Harvest Town Circle Ltd (In Liquidation) EAT/1029/02 22 May 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites 1 Citers Â London General Transport Service Ltd Blackledge v London General Transtoet Service Ltd A P Blackledge EAT/43/03; EAT/37/03; [2003] EAT 0037_03_1806; [2003] UKEAT 0037_03_1806 23 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â London General Transport Service Ltd, Blackledge v London General Transtoet Service Ltd, A P Blackledge EAT/43/03; EAT/37/03 23 May 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â the Health and Safety Executive v B F Cadman EAT/947/02 2 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - Like work Â Philton Moore v The University of Greenwich Russell Brockett [2003] EAT 0942_01_0306; UKEAT/942/01/RN; [2003] UKEAT 0942_01_0306 3 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Philton Moore v the University of Greenwich, Russell Brockett UKEAT/942/01/RN 3 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Hempkin v Murphy [2003] NIFET 539_00 4 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Kyamanywa v London Borough of Hackney [2003] EWCA Civ 902 5 Jun 2003 CA Mummery LJ Discrimination, Employment An issue was whether a notice had been sent to solicitors as the authorised representative of the Appellant. The Appellant had occasionally used one firm of solicitors but at other times she had acted in person at the hearing and also when communicating with the Tribunal. Held: The tribunal's decision that notice had been sent to the solicitors as authorised representatives was approved (Mummery LJ): “In my judgment there was no error of law in the decision of the review tribunal regarding non-receipt of notice. On that point I agree with the submissions made by Miss Maclaren on behalf of the council. It is clear, reading the extended reasons of the review tribunal, that they made findings of fact on that point without any error of law. The applicant accepted in her evidence to them that she had instructed Balogun Kirvan to act on her behalf throughout. They had instructed counsel to appear in the tribunal on her behalf at an earlier hearing; they had corresponded with the tribunal as her solicitors; and the tribunal had corresponded with them and sent notices and documents to them. The evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant did not establish that either the applicant or Balogun Kirvan had even given any notice to the tribunal under regulation 20(4), indicating that the tribunal should now send notices and documents to her personally rather than to the firm of solicitors who had started to act for her.” 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Jennifer Ryan v Your Move Co UK Ltd T/A Your Move John Ralph David Rouse, John Opwell EAT/25/02 5 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Pregnancy and discrimination Â S L Ada v Pick Everard EAT/74/03; [2003] EAT 0074_03_0107; [2003] UKEAT 0074_03_0107 5 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Adams v Pick Everard EAT/74/03 5 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â Jennifer Ryan v Your Move Co UK Ltd T/A Your Move, John Ralph, David Rouse, John Opwell EAT/25/02 5 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Pregnancy and discrimination. [ EATn ] Â A Jenkins v Legoland Windsor Park Ltd EAT/1155/02 6 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â A Jenkins v Legoland Windsor Park Ltd EAT/1155/02 6 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â University of Brighton v Tabary-Peterssen EAT/747/02 9 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Wall Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EAT ] Â Onuegbu v Campbell [2003] EWCA Civ 858 11 Jun 2003 CA Discrimination, Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â A Oldfield v University of Surrey UKEAT/0045/03 11 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â A Oldfield v University of Surrey UKEAT/0045/03 11 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Hamilton v Down and Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust [2003] NIFET 308_00 11 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Hamilton v Down and Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust (Religious Discrimination/Unfair Dismissal) [2003] NIFET 9 11 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Commissioner v J Fernandez EAT/137/03; [2003] EAT 0137_03_0509; [2003] UKEAT 0137_03_0509 11 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - Article 141 The applicant began work as a case worker at a lower salary than a female case worker employed by different departments in the same office. The female case worker was subsequently paid a recruitment and retention allowance which the male applicant did not receive and a greater performance related pay award based on a higher marking in the annual appraisals. The applicant had brought an equal pay claim against his employer and the employer accepted that both workers were employed on light work put forward a genuine material factor of defence which the tribunal rejected on the grounds that the employer had failed to show objective justification on a difference in pay. Held: It was not necessary under either U.K or Community Law for an employer to prove objective justification in a case where the factor relied on was not tainted by sex discrimination, and no suggestion of prima facie in direct discrimination was raised, holding it that the employer need only show that profit explanation was genuine and not a sham, that the less favourable treatment was due to that reason, and that the reason was not the difference in sex and the factor relied on was a material difference. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â J D Scott v Commissioners of Inland Revenue UKEAT/68/03/ZT 13 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D M Levy QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings Â J D Scott v Commissioners of Inland Revenue UKEAT/68/03/ZT 13 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D M Levy Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â O Obasa v Kerry Chisholm Steven Mclivenny Northamptonshire County Council, Sally Bresnahan EAT/1455/01; [2003] EAT 1455_01_1706; [2003] UKEAT 1455_01_1706; EAT/1455/01 17 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Practice and Procedure - No case to answer 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Carson and Reynolds v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2003] EWCA Civ 797; Times, 28 June 2003; [2003] 3 All ER 577 17 Jun 2003 CA Lord Justice Laws Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown Discrimination, Human Rights, Benefits The claimant Reynolds challenged the differential treatment by age of jobseeker's allowance. Carson complained that as a foreign resident pensioner, her benefits had not been uprated. The questions in each case were whether the benefit affected a 'possession' within the Convention or the discrimination was arbitrary so as to breach the applicants human rights. Held: The meaning of possessions within the Convention was autonomous. In the field of social security the Strasbourg court has drawn a line between contributory and non-contributory benefits. The decision to exclude foreign residents from uprating of benefits was objectively justified without regard to cost. Equally there was an objective justification for the differentiation between under and over 25s in the payment of benefits, at least as regards jobseekers allowance. European Convention on Human Rights - Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 79 - Jobseekers Act 1995 4(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mcclelland v Ajt Trading Ltd and Another [2003] NIFET 510_00 17 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mcclelland v Ajt Trading Ltd and Another (Religious Discrimination/Sex Discrimination/Unfair Dismissal) [2003] NIFET 10 17 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Regina on the Application of Wilkinson v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue [2003] EWCA Civ 814; Times, 28 June 2003; 2002/0648; Gazette, 04 September 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2683 18 Jun 2003 CA Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Rix Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Income Tax, Discrimination, Taxes Management, Human Rights The claimant had not received the same tax allowance following his wife's death as would have been received by a woman surviving her husband. That law had been declared incompatible with Human Rtights law as discriminatory, but the respondent refused to make good any claim which had not been originally pursued to the European Court, since there was no obligation, the case having been a friendly settlement not creating an obligation, and saying that primary legislation (s262) required them not to make a payment. One of the primary tasks of the Commissioners is to recover those taxes which Parliament has decreed shall be paid. Section 1 of the 1970 Act permits them to do this pragmatically with regard to principles of good management. Concessions can be made where those will facilitate the overall task of tax collection. Nevertheless Parliament did not intend the benefit to be available to men, and it was outside the scope of a concession to allow it. A declaration of incompatibility was made. Human Rights Act 1998 4 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262 - Taxes Management Act 1970 1(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Hooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2002] EWCA Civ 813; Times, 28 June 2003; Gazette, 17 July 2003; [2003] 1 WLR 2623 18 Jun 2003 CA Lord Justice Mantell Lord Justice Rix Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Human Rights, Discrimination The appellants were widowers whose wives had died at a time when the benefits a widow would have received were denied to widowers. The legislation had since changed but they variously sought compensation for the unpaid sums. Held: The appeal succeeded. By 1995 discrimination as to pensions was no longer supportable. And those appellants pursuing that point succeeded. The Human Rights Act required the court to read statute to be compliant. A statute purporting to justify an infringement could not be relied upon as a defence. Those individuals who had taken their cases to the Human Rights Court had been paid on a friendly settlment. Such would not oblige the respondent to make arrangements for others. This was well recognised as a motive for such settlements. However the Secretary had power to make the payments, and in failing to pay he again infringed the claimants' 6.1 rights, but it was not irrational not to make extra statutory payments for those who had not claimed. It was necessary to make a payment in damages to achieve just satisfaction, and damages were awarded. Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 36 37 38 - Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 262(1) - European Convention on Human Rights 14 First Prot Art1 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and Another [2003] EAT 0688_02_1806; [2003] UKEAT 0688_02_1806 18 Jun 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Â Relaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D'Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions; HL 19-Jun-2003 - [2003] UKHL 33; Times, 23 June 2003; [2003] ICR 867; Gazette, 31 July 2003; [2003] IRLR 484 Â MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School [2003] UKHL 34; Times, 20 June 2003; [2003] ICR 867; Gazette, 17 July 2003 19 Jun 2003 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry Scotland, Discrimination Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation. Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the sexual orientation of the first claimant. Discrimination for sexual orientation does not come within the rules against sex discrimination. Mr MacDonald was dismissed because he was homosexual. A female homosexual would also have been dismissed. The appeals were dismissed. “These two appeals demonstrate the importance, in my opinion, when dealing with complaints under the 1975 Act and the other anti-discrimination Acts, of keeping in mind that they are intended to combat discrimination. They are anti-discrimination statutes. Absent discrimination, objectionable conduct by employers must be countered by other means than complaints under these Acts.” Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 1 Cites 1 Citers [ House of Lords ] - [ Bailii ] Â Woods v the Royal College of Nursing EAT/837/02; [2003] EAT 0837_02_2006; [2003] UKEAT 0837_02_2006 20 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D M Levy QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Woods v The Royal College of Nursing EAT/837/02 20 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D M Levy Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EAT ] Â Moore v Nir Company Ltd [2003] NIFET 143_00 23 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Bradford v GMB Trade Union [2003] EAT 0253_03_2306 23 Jun 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â A v R [2003] EAT 0898_02_2306 23 Jun 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination Appeal from refusal of claim for sex discrimination - allegation of sexual harassment. [ Bailii ] Â K Boughton v Tvr Engineer Ltd EAT/987/02 24 Jun 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification Â Mclaughlin v North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust (Religious and Political Discrimination/Unfair Dismissal) [2003] NIFET 11 24 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mclaughlin v North and West Belfast Health and Social Services Trust [2003] NIFET 427_98 24 Jun 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â K Boughton v Tvr Engineer Ltd EAT/987/02 24 Jun 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â P Paul v National Probation Service EAT/290/03 25 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â P Paul v National Probation Service EAT/290/03 25 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Ministry of Defence v H M Willia EAT/833/02 26 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â Clare Nlouise Jones v Hsbc Bank Plc UKEAT/205/03 26 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Ministry of Defence v H M Williams EAT/833/02 26 Jun 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Clare Louise Jones v HSBC Bank Plc EAT/1036/02 26 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment Â Dr H Saad v Birmingham City Council EAT/734/02 27 Jun 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â Alexander James Mackay v Aberdeenshire Council EATS/0008/03 27 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Dr H Saad v Birmingham City Council, Sir Michael Lyons EAT/734/02 27 Jun 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Alexander James Mackay v Aberdeenshire Council EATS/0008/03 27 Jun 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Tobias Mason EAT/369/03 1 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â Hutchison 3G UK Ltd v Tobias Mason EAT/369/03; [2003] EAT 0369_03_1607; [2003] UKEAT 0369_03_1607 1 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT A cocaine addict who suffered from clinical depression claimed discrimination on the ground of disability. Held: There was expert medical evidence before the employment tribunal which had entitled it to conclude that, irrespective of the cocaine addiction, the applicant had a depressive disorder which was sufficiently causative of the absence from work that the dismissal because of such absence from work related to such a disability. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Deman v The Association of University Teachers and Others [2003] EAT 0266_03_0207; [2003] UKEAT 0266_03_0207; EAT/142/03; EAT/266/03 2 Jul 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Practice and Procedure - Estoppel EAT Practice and Procedure - Estoppel or Abuse of Process. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â London Borough of Islington v A Bamigbade EAT618/02 4 Jul 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â London Borough of Islington v A Bamigbade EAT618/02; [2003] EAT 0618_02_0407; [2003] UKEAT 0618_02_0407 4 Jul 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â The Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT/1057/01; EAT/1056/01; [2003] UKEAT 1056_01_3107 7 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Elias Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination against her. The complainant appealed findings that she had lied to the tribunal on oath, and that the discrimination had been only indirect. Held: The finding that she had lied under oath to the tribunal was not part of the tribunal's order and could not be challenged on appeal. All unlawful discriminatory treatment is unreasonable, but not all unreasonable treatment is discriminatory, and it is not shown to be so merely because the victim is either a woman or of a minority race or colour. The fact of unreasonable behaviour operates to increase the possibility of finding explanations for behaviour challengeable. There must be evidence independent of hostile treatment to justify the inference of discrimination on proscribed grounds. It is not possible to state whether the chosen comparator would have been differently treated independently of knowing why the alleged victim was treated in the way in which he or she was. The tribunal erred in law in not distinguishing between the race and sex discrimination. The tribunal had failed to identify the facts upon which their inference of discrimination was based. The complete absence of evidence to support the allegation of discrimination whether for sex or race made the findings unsustainable. There was no proper basis for concluding that Mrs Betts was treating Dr. Bahl less favourably because of Dr. Bahl’s race or sex. Similarly, there was even less justification in the light of the evidence for imputing such improper discriminatory conduct to Mr Sayer. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 12 - Race Relations Act 1976 11 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â HSBC Plc v C Drage EAT/369/03; UKEAT/205/03 8 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Unfair Dismissal - Compensation Â Kennedy v Humphrey (T/A Humphrey Agriculture) [2003] NIFET 3483_01 9 Jul 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â C H Nichols v The Governing Body of Kingsley School EAT/206/03; [2003] EAT 0206_03_1007; [2003] UKEAT 0206_03_1007 10 Jul 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â C H Nichols v the Governing Body of Kingsley School EAT/206/03 10 Jul 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â The University of Huddersfield v Dr P R Wolff EAT/596/02; [2003] EAT 0596_02_1607; [2003] UKEAT 0596_02_1607 16 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Jayawardane v Customs and Excise [2003] EWCA Civ 1194 17 Jul 2003 CA Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Obasa v Chisholm and others [2003] UKEAT 1455_01_1707 17 Jul 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Croft v Royal Mail Group Plc (formerly Consignia Group plc) [2003] EWCA Civ 1045; Times, 24 July 2003 18 Jul 2003 CA Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Jonathon Parker Discrimination The employee was a transsexual, awaiting completion of surgical transformation to a woman. The employer said she could not use the female toilet facilities, but was offered use of the unisex disabled facilities. Held: The 1975 Act provides for a category of persons who are not to be discriminated against. By virtue of the definition in section 82 the category includes persons at all stages of gender reassignment under medical supervision but it does not follow that all such persons are entitled immediately to be treated as members of the sex to which they aspire. The stage of gender re-assignment was one diffficult to categorise simply. Both employer and employee must recognise the difficulties involved and act reasonably to overcome them. On the facts of this case, there was no conduct by the respondents which, upon her resignation, gave rise to a constructive dismissal. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 82 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â M A Wlodarczyk v Shell Pensions Management Services and others EAT/330/03 21 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â Ms M A Wlodarczyk v Shell Pensions Management Services and others EAT/330/03 21 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Sukui-Lennard v Croydon Primary Healthcare Trust Times, 14 August 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1192 22 Jul 2003 CA Perter Gibson, Mance, Longmore LJJ Employment, Discrimination, Civil Procedure Rules The appellant sought to appeal a striking out of her complaint of race discrimination. She appealed from the Employment Appeal Tribunal which had rejected her appeal in its preliminary hearing procedure. Held: The Court of Appeal had the power to return a case to the full Employment Appeal Tribunal so that it could hear and determine points necessary for the decision in the Appeal. An appeal from a decision under the preliminary hearing procedure risked matters coming to the Court of Appeal which would be better have been resolved before the appeal. This case was one such. Civil Procedure Rules 52.10(2)(b) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Camden and others v Rajwinder Singh EAT/294/03 23 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â London Borough of Camden and others v Rajwinder Singh EAT/294/03 23 Jul 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect Â Sahota v Birmingham City Council [2003] UKEAT 0359_03_2407 24 Jul 2003 EAT Elias P Employment, Discrimination Appeal against refusal of claim for disability discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Jones v DAS Legal Expenses Insurance Co Ltd and Others [2003] EWCA Civ 1071 24 Jul 2003 CA Discrimination, Employment [ Bailii ] Â Karner v Austria (2003) 38 EHRR 528; 40016/98; (2003) 2 FLR 623; [2003] ECHR 395; [2003] Fam Law 724; [2004] 2 FCR 563; 14 BHRC 674; [2004] 38 EHRR 24 24 Jul 2003 ECHR C.L. ROZAKIS, P Human Rights, Housing, Discrimination A surviving same-sex partner sought a right of succession to a tenancy (of their previously shared flat). Interveners "pointed out that a growing number of national courts in European and other democratic societies require equal treatment of unmarried different-sex partners and unmarried same-sex partners, and that that view is supported by recommendations and legislation of European institutions". Held: The claim succeeded. As to the margin of appreciation the ECHR stated: "The Court can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment. It remains to be ascertained whether, in the circumstances of the case, the principle of proportionality has been respected. The aim of protecting the family in the traditional sense is rather abstract and a broad variety of concrete measures may be used to implement it. In cases in which the margin of appreciation afforded to Member States is narrow, as [is] the position where there is a difference in treatment based on sex or sexual orientation, the principle of proportionality does not merely require that the measure chosen is in principle suited for realising the aim sought. It must also be shown that it was necessary to exclude persons living in a homosexual relationship from the scope of [the relevant provision] of the Rent Act in order to achieve that aim." The court expressly did not decide whether the applicant's case fell within the scope of 'family life' or 'private life'. European Convention on Human Rights 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Mcgurk v Mcqueen and Another [2003] NIFET 2112_02 29 Jul 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Henry v London Borough of Newham [2003] UKEAT 0991_02_2907 29 Jul 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Dr Yar Pye v Medway NHS Trust EAT/284/03; [2003] EAT 0284_03_0508 5 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison [ Bailii ] Â Dr Yar Pye v Medway NHS Trust EAT/284/03 5 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison. [ EATn ] Â Elgin v Wild Duck Inn (Preliminary Hearing) [2003] NIFET 12 8 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Elgin v Wild Duck Inn [2003] NIFET 250_01 8 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Askey v Sendo Ltd [2003] UKEAT 0457_03_0808 8 Aug 2003 EAT McMullen QC HHJ Employment, Discrimination Correct approach to unfair dismissal following notice of pregnancy and Employment Tribunal procedure, when an Applicant takes her baby to the hearing. [ Bailii ] Â A Anyanwu, O Ebuzoeme v O Ebuzoeme, London South Bank Student Union, London South Bank University EAT/279/03 and EAT/280/03 11 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Aiding and abetting. [ EAT ] Â Convery v Ulster Weavers Apparel Ltd [2003] NIFET 130_01 13 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Clarke v Police Service for Northern Ireland [2003] NIFET 60_01 15 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414) [2003] EAT 0414_03_1508; [2003] UKEAT 0414_03_1508 15 Aug 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination Claimant's application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination. Held: rejected. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cushnahan v Malone Golf Club and Another (Pre Hearing Assessment) [2003] NIFET 14 15 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Clarke v Police Service for Northern Ireland (Religious Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 13 15 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415 [2003] EAT 0415_03_1508; [2003] UKEAT 0415_03_1508 15 Aug 2003 EAT Ansell HHJ Employment, Discrimination Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant's claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the grounds that he was 19 days outside the three month period in presenting his complaint. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Cushnahan v Malone Golf Club and Another [2003] NIFET 271_02 15 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Magagnin EAT/424/03; [2003] EAT 0424_03_1109; [2003] UKEAT 0424_03_1109; UKEAT/0653/04 18 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Employment, Discrimination EAT Practice and Procedure - Bias, misconduct and procedural irregularity 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Meikle v Nottinghamshire County Council EAT/0033/03; [2003] EAT 0033_03_2609; [2003] UKEAT 0033_03_2609 19 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. The appellant brought proceedings against the Respondents alleging that they had failed to make adjustments to her workplace and conditions so as to accommodate her disability, that they had treated her less favourably for reasons relating to her disability; and in the second case presented in 2000 that they had constructively dismissed her. EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Ms C Pratt v Sanden International (Europe) Limited EAT/529/02 20 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof. [ EATn ] Â Mcwilliams v Queens University Belfast [2003] NIFET 523_00 21 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mcwilliams v Queens University Belfast (Religious Discrimination/Sex Discrimination) [2003] NIFET 15 21 Aug 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Rory S Gallier v Lothian Buses Plc EATS/0011/03 25 Aug 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Rory S Gallier v Lothian Buses Plc EATS/0011/03 25 Aug 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â J Walter Thompson Group Ltd v Ms Sue Williams UKEAT/299/03 28 Aug 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville Times, 10 September 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003 3 Sep 2003 CA Sir Andrew Morritt VC, Peter Gibson, Kay LJJ Employment, Police, Discrimination The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers. Held: Anything done by an employee was done also by the employer under section 41(2). The law had been changed after Liversidge. A chief constable must delegate his responsibilities, and the court could not say that what occurred fell outside the scope of s41(2), and it was therefore a question of fact for the tribunal. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 17(1) 41(2) - Police Act 1996 10 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Hempkin v Murphy (Religious and Political Discrimination/Unfair Dismissal) [2003] NIFET 16 5 Sep 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Murali v British Medical Association UKEAT/850/02/SM; [2003] UKEAT 0850_02_0912 8 Sep 2003 EAT Her Honour Judge A Wakefield Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Rinke v Arztekammer Hamburg; ECJ 9-Sep-2003 - C-25/02; Times, 25 September 2003; [2003] EUECJ C-25/02 Â Â Bank v IBM (UK) Ltd; EAT 9-Sep-2003 - UKEAT/389/03 Â Erika Steinicke v Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit C-77/02; [2003] EUECJ C-77/02 11 Sep 2003 ECJ European, Discrimination Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Sigmaringen - Germany. Social policy - Equal treatment for men and women - Scheme of part-time work for older employees - Directive 76/207/EEC - Indirect discrimination - Objective justification. [ Bailii ] Â Clifford v Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust (Preliminary Hearing) [2003] NIFET 17 12 Sep 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Clifford v Homefirst Community Health and Social Services Trust [2003] NIFET 267_00 12 Sep 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Weerarathna v British Broadcasting Corporation [2003] UKEAT 0260_03_1209 12 Sep 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Southwark v Roseann Aytpn UKEAT/515/03/DM 18 Sep 2003 EAT His Hon Judge J Burke QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison Â London Borough of Southwark v Roseann Ayton UKEAT/0515/03/DM 18 Sep 2003 EAT His Honour Judge J Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison. [ EATn ] Â J T W Cheasty v H M Prison Service EAT/1142/02 & EAT/1143/02 19 Sep 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â J T W Cheasty v H M Prison Service EAT/1142/02 & EAT/1143/02 19 Sep 2003 EAT His Hon Judge D Serota QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation Â Dr Valentina Valkova v Department of Work and Pensions EAT/442/02 25 Sep 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Dr Valentina Valkova v Department of Work and Pensions EAT/442/02; [2003] EAT 0442_02_2910; [2003] UKEAT 0442_02_2910 25 Sep 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Luba QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Al-Jibouri v Seagate Technology (Ireland) Ltd [2003] NIFET 474_02 26 Sep 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â (Un-named) [2003] UKSSCSC CCS_1153_2003 1 Oct 2003 SSCS Discrimination, Child Support The mother had challenged payments required of her by way of child support. The Secretary of State now appealed. Held: The appeal was rejected: "a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8". There was no reason, in the context of child support legislation, to distinguish between families according to the sexual orientation of the partners. The purpose of the regulations was to determine the financial obligation of the absent parent, a matter on which his or her sexual orientation should have no bearing. Accordingly, the applicant's situation was within the ambit of the right to respect for family life. The court rejected, however, the applicant's argument that the situation also came within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As to Article 14, the Commissioner found that, in the context of child support payments, the applicant's situation was analogous to that of an absent parent living with a heterosexual partner, who, all other things being equal, would have been required to pay around GBP 14 per week instead of almost GBP 47. The Government had not advanced any justification for treating the applicant differently and therefore the child support scheme violated the applicant's Convention right under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8. Concerning the remedy, the Commissioner disagreed with the approach of the Appeals Tribunal. Instead, since the regulations defined the various terms used by the regulations "unless the context otherwise requires", he considered that, with the entry into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000, the "context" now included the absent parent's Convention rights. Therefore, the definition of an unmarried couple ("a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife") did not apply in this situation. European Convention on Human Rights - Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2) 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Secretary of State for Trade and Industry v Rutherford and Another; Same v Bentley Times, 08 October 2003; Gazette, 06 November 2003 2 Oct 2003 EAT Wall J, Ezekiel, Springer Discrimination The claimants sought to challenge the legislation which removed their employment rights upon attaining the age of 65, arguing that this was discriminatory against men. The Secretary of State appealed the tribunal's decision. Held: The tribunal had selected the wrong set of comparators. In cases where the issue related to the entitlement to redundancy payments and unfair dismissal, the proper pool was the entire work force. Though the question no longer arose strictly the court considered obiter whether any such discrimination would be objectively justified. It would have found such a justification. The government would have a margin of appreciation in setting such rules, and the tribunal had failed to take account of the consultation process. Employment Rights Act 1996 109(1)(b) 156(1)(b) 1 Cites Â Jennette Macdonald v Salvation Army and others EATS/0038/03 3 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Â Jennette Macdonald v Salvation Army and others EATS/0038/03 3 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Graterlondon Authority v S J Leach UKEAT/363/03 6 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation Â Graterlondon Authority v S J Leach UKEAT/363/03 6 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â British Telecommunications plc v Reid Times, 09 October 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2003] EWCA Civ 1675; [2004] IRLR 327 6 Oct 2003 CA Ward LJ, Latham LJ, Keene LJ Damages, Discrimination The respondent appealed an award of £10.000 for damages for an act of direct race discrimination. The claimant, of Afro-Caribbean origin, had been subjected to a racist comment. Held: Translating hurt feelings into hard currency will always be an artificial exercise (Vento). The reasons for the award of aggravated damages were apparent from the tribunal's findings. The transgressor had not been punished, but had even been promoted. Race Relations Act 1976 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â GMB Union v M Fenton EAT/46/03; [2003] EAT 0798_02_0710; [2003] UKEAT 0798_02_0710; EAT/798/02 7 Oct 2003 EAT Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Devine-Jones v Commissioners of Police the Metropolis Detective Inspector Woodward EAT/342/03; [2003] EAT 0342_03_0810; [2003] UKEAT 0342_03_0810 8 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Vicarious liability [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â A Cooper Shaldene Ltd T/A Transmissions Clothing v P Smith UKEAT/452/03 9 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â A Cooper, Shaldene Ltd T/A Transmissions Clothing v P Smith UKEAT/452/03 9 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust (Now Materially Succeeded By Camden and Islington Mental and Social Care Trust) v J A Akinmolasire EAT/332/03; [2003] EAT 0332_03_0910; [2003] UKEAT 0332_03_0910 9 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Purja and others v Ministry of Defence [2003] EWCA Civ 1345; Times, 16 October 2003; Gazette, 16 October 2003; [2004] 1 WLR 289 9 Oct 2003 CA Lord Justice Chadwick Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Simon Brown Discrimination, Armed Forces, Human Rights The applicants were Gurkha soldiers who complained at the differences in treatment of them as against other members of the forces as regards payment, pensions and otherwise, alleged infringement oftheir Article 14 rights, which prevented discrimination on the grounds of national or social origin. Held: In isolation, these soldiers were treated differently and worse. Howeevr the greater cost of living in Britain rather than Nepal justified that difference. There were also other additional benefits for Gurkhas, including longer leave periods. The two groups were not in a comparable position. Rix LJ, dissenting, the restriction which did not allow more than 25% of Gurkha soldiers to have their wives accompany them was discriminatory. European Convention on Human Rights 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust (Now Materially Succeeded By Camden and Islington Mental and Social Care Trust) v Ms J A Akinmolasire EAT/332/03 9 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â R Spicer v Government of Spain UKEAT/516/03; [2003] UKEAT 0516_03_2511 10 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â R Spicer v Government of Spain UKEAT/516/03; [2003] UKEAT 0516_03_2511 10 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mccrory v British Red Cross [2003] NIFET 315_02 10 Oct 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Gorman v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [2003] NIFET 294_99 10 Oct 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â R Spicer v Government of Spain UKEAT/516/03 10 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Crown Prosecution Service v Thind [2003] EAT 0399_03_1310; [2003] UKEAT 0399_03_1310 13 Oct 2003 EAT Peter Clark HHJ Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Ealing v Robinson and Collins EAT/412/03 13 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ EAT ] Â The Ministry of Defence v C Armstrong K George and others UKEAT/1239/02 17 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr S Justice Cox Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Equal Pay Act 1970 - Treaty of Rome 141 Â R W Lisk-Carew v Birmingham City Council Dr S Sharp UKEAT/779/02; [2003] UKEAT 0779_02_2110 21 Oct 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â C Singh v Esprit People Ltd and others UKEAT/0278/03 23 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT Unfair Dismissal - Reason for dismissal Â Department for Work and Pensions v Matthew Thompson UKEAT/254/03/MAA 23 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Comparison Â Schonheit v Stadt Frankfurt am Main; Becker v Land Hessen [2003] EUECJ C-4/02; C-5/02; [2003] EUECJ C-5/02; [2004] IRLR 983; [2004] Pens LR 43; [2006] 1 CMLR 51; C-4/02 23 Oct 2003 ECJ La Pergola Rap European, Discrimination ECJ Social policy - Equal pay for men and women - Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles 117 to 120 of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) and Article 141(1) and (2) EC and of Directive 86/378/EEC or Directive 79/7/EEC - Meaning of pay - Civil service pension scheme - Calculation of the old-age pension for part-time civil servants - Discriminatory treatment as compared with full-time workers - Indirect discrimination based on sex - Conditions governing justification for objective reasons unrelated to any discrimination on grounds of sex - Protocol concerning Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Protocol concerning Article 141 EC) - Temporal effects. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Ballamoody v Nursing and Midwifery Council UKEAT/0079/03/LA; [2003] UKEAT 0079_03_2410 24 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Elizabeth Rush v Kaw Hospital NHS Trust EATS/0009/03 28 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Â Dr S D Silva May and Liddle v Harrison; EAT 28-Oct-2003 - UKEAT/128/03 Â Butt v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council [2003] UKEAT 0495_03_2810 28 Oct 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Rush v Law Hospital NHS Trust [2003] UKEAT 0009_03_2810 28 Oct 2003 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Dial -A - Phone A Brown v Butt UKEAT/286/03 28 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Elizabeth Rush v Kaw Hospital NHS Trust EATS/0009/03; [2003] EATS 0009_03_2810 28 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â Titterington v Ensor, Napier University EATS/0052/02; [2003] EATS 0052_02_3110; [2003] UKEAT 0052_02_3110 31 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Albert John Titterington v John Ensor, Napier University EATS/0052/02 31 Oct 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Preston and others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and others UKEAT/1069/02 and UKEAT1070/02 U; [2003] UKEAT 1069_02_1912; [2004] IRLR 96; [2004] ICR 993 3 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge McMullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Judge McMullen QC adopted a limited view of the scope of the new principle of stable employment set out at the ECJ and HL. He thought it was intended "to rescue employees who do not have a permanent job"; and that it was confined to cases of the kind considered by the ECJ, that is those relating to applicants who: "worked regularly but periodically or intermittently for the same employer, under successive legally separate contracts." 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â The Medical Protection Society Dr S Bown Dr Hickey v Dr Saher Sadek UKEAT/594/03 4 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Discrimination by other bodies EAT Race Discrimination - Discrimination by other bodies. 1 Citers [ EAT ] Â Mayo-Deman v Lewisham College UKEAT/104/02/SM; [2003] EAT 0104_02_0812 5 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Instant Muscle Limited v N Knawaja UKEAT/216/03 5 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation Â East Sussex County Council v Hancock UKEAT/353/03; [2003] UKEAT 0353_03_0511 5 Nov 2003 EAT Burton P Discrimination, Employment EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that it should have a substantial and long term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal activities. The expert evidence was that he had no effect on his day-to-day activities by way of loss of concentration or memory. Held: It was not clear whether the Tribunal had accepted or rejected the expert evidence. It had preferred the evidence of the claimant without giving proper consideration to the expert evidence, and the central conclusion that the claimant was prejudiced by te fear of being in crowds was not supported by any evidence. The appeal succeeded, and the case remitted. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 3 491)(g) 4(1)(h) 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Instant Muscle Limited v N Knawaja UKEAT/216/03 5 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â Dr D Simba v Crawley Borough Council UKEAT/475/03/ST 6 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â Simba v Crawley Borough Council UKEAT/475/03/ST; [2003] UKEAT 0475_03_2611 6 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Keith Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Pilar Aida Rojas v Brian Berllaque [2003] UKHL 76; Times, 13 November 2003; [2003] UKPC 76; [2004] 1 WLR 201 10 Nov 2003 PC Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Millett, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination, Criminal Practice PC (Gibraltar) The system of selecting a criminal jury obliged men to be available for selection, but women could choose not to be on the role of jurors. The result was that jury lists and juries were almost entirely male. Held: (Majority) Since juries are chosen at random from jury lists, a non-discriminatory method of compilation of the jury lists is an essential ingredient of a fair trial by jury. This is inherent in the concept of a fair trial by an impartial jury. Fairness is achieved in the composition of a jury by random selection from a list which is itself fairly constituted. Section 19 of the Supreme Court Ordinance violates section 8 of the Constitution in so far as it discriminates between men and women regarding liability for jury service. There is a strong but rebuttable presumption that a jury acts impartially. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ PC ] - [ Bailii ] Â Legal Services Commission v Yvonne Patterson [2003] EWCA Civ 1558; Gazette, 15 January 2004; [2004] ICR 312; [2004] IRLR 153 11 Nov 2003 CA Clarke, Judge LJJ, Burton J Legal Professions, Discrimination, Employment The claimant worked as a sole practitioner solicitor. The firm failed the first part of its franchise assessment. She sought to allege race discrimination. The EAT rejected the complaint on the basis that she was not an employee. Held: The contracts between a firm and the Commission made it clear that this was a contract for services, rather than a contract of service. Accordingly the applicant was free to employ others to do the work she would promise to do for the Commission, and she was not therefore employed with any standing to make a complaint as an employee. She might however proceed on a complaint relating to the authorisation procedure adopted. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Mccabe v Board of Governors Erne Integrated College [2003] NIFET 3085_01 13 Nov 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Bird v Holland and others [2003] NIFET 234_02 14 Nov 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Bird v Holland and Another (Preliminary Hearing) [2003] NIFET 18 14 Nov 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Cunningham v Quedos Ltd John Wyeth and Brothers Ltd UKEAT/298/03; [2003] UKEAT 0298_03_1411 14 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Regina on the Application of Deutsch v London Borough of Hackney [2003] EWHC 2692 (Admin) 14 Nov 2003 Admn The Honourable Mr Justice Hooper Road Traffic, Discrimination, Local Government [ Bailii ] Â South East Sheffield Citizens Advice Bureau v J Grayson UKEAT/283/03; [2003] UKEAT 0283_03_1711 17 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Maxine Nixon v Gmb and others UKEAT/598/03 18 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â Maxine Nixon v Gmb and others UKEAT/598/03 18 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Â Sivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality and others UKEAT/622/03; [2003] UKEAT 0622_03_1811; UKEAT/812/03 18 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Aiding and abetting 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Ministry of Defence Police v A Armstrong UKEAT/0551/03 20 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Â Ebuzoeme v Anyanwu and others [2003] EAT 0279_03_2011 20 Nov 2003 EAT Serota QC J Employment, Discrimination The Applicants had claimed against the Union that they were discriminated against on the grounds of race and had suffered victimisation and that the Union was in breach of contract. All of these claims were dismissed. The Applicants claimed that the University had knowingly aided acts of discrimination and victimisation by the Union; these complaints were dismissed. [ Bailii ] Â Lane Group Plc, North Somerset Council v Farmiloe [2004] UKEAT 0352_03_2201; UKEAT/352/03; UKEAT/357/03 24 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Swift v Chief Constable of Wiltshire Constabulary UKEAT/484/03; [2004] IRLR 540; [2004] UKEAT 0484_03_1802; [2004] ICR 909 25 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Richardson Discrimination, Employment The EAT upheld the decision of an Employment Tribunal that the claimant had not shown that her disability was likely to recur. However: "In considering whether during a particular period in the past, a substantial adverse effect was likely to recur a tribunal is of course entitled to look at the evidence of what occurred during that period. In particular, if it is said that an effect was likely to recur because certain circumstances would be likely to trigger it, a tribunal is entitled to consider whether those circumstances occurred during the period and whether the substantial adverse effect did recur. Such evidence is not necessarily conclusive. It is for the tribunal to assess". Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ EAT ] - [ Bailii ] Â V v Addey and Stanhope School and others UKEAT/565/03/RN; [2003] EAT 0565_03_2511; [2003] UKEAT 0565_03_2511 25 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Detriment 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â S M Copsey v WWB Devon Clays Ltd UKEAT/438/03; [2004] UKEAT 0438_03_1302 26 Nov 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Cx Access Systems Ltd v M Hampton UKEAT/307/03 27 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings Â Cx Access Systems Ltd v M Hampton UKEAT/307/03 27 Nov 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Maxwell v Newry and Mourne District Council [2003] NIFET 534_00 27 Nov 2003 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Madden v Preferred Technical Group- Cha Ltd M Guest UKEAT/668/03; [2003] UKEAT 0668_03_0112 1 Dec 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Madden v Preferred Technical Group- Cha Ltd M Guest UKEAT/668/03; [2003] UKEAT 0668_03_0112 1 Dec 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority v W Byrne UKEAT/548/03 1 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority v W Byrne UKEAT/548/03; [2003] UKEAT 0548_03_0112 1 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â 1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton UKEAT/775/03; Times, 14 April 2004; [2003] UKEAT 0775_03_0212 2 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Legal Professions, Employment The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act. Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not that of a member of that chambers so as to attract protection within the Act. EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13(4) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Freer Bouskell v Brwester UKEAT/377/03 3 Dec 2003 EAT His Hon Judge McMullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EAT ] Â Electronic Data Systems Ltd v Dr C H Travis UKEAT/476/03 8 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Â Electronic Data Systems Ltd v Dr C H Travis UKEAT/476/03 8 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Susan Archibald v Fife Council [2003] ScotCS 308; Times, 23 January 2004 9 Dec 2003 IHCS Lord Hamilton And Lord Macfadyen And Lord Mccluskey Scotland, Employment, Discrimination The applicant was a roadsweeper. She complained of disability discrimination, when after becoming unable to walk, her employer after considering her for other posts dismissed her for incapacity. Held: The ability to walk was a part of the irreducible minimum capacity required of the job. The Code of Practice could not be used as an aid to interpreting the statute. It offered practical guidance only, and itself acknowledged that the primary onus of interprtation fell on courts and tribunals. The offer of entirely different work was not a requirement of the statute. Employment Tribunal Act 1996 37 - Disability Discrimination Act 1996 6 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ ScotC ] Â Â McAuley Catholic High School v CC and Others; Admn 11-Dec-2003 - [2003] EWHC 3045 (Admin) Â McAuley Catholic High School v CC, PC and another [2003] EWHC 3045 (Admin) 11 Dec 2003 Admn Silner J Discrimination, Education Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â The Senate of Surgery and others v Chaudhary and others UKEAT/919/03; [2003] UKEAT 0919_03_1712 17 Dec 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Employment, Health Professions, Discrimination EAT Practice and Procedure - Amendment [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â v M Bruce v John Anderson and others UK/EAT/1355/01 17 Dec 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â v M Bruce v John Anderson and others UK/EAT/1355/01 17 Dec 2003 EAT Mr Recorder Langstaff QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Quantum Business Media v Mark Hayes UKEAT/593/03/DM 18 Dec 2003 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Malik v Mchaffie EATS/0010/02 18 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Fozzia Malik v Gillian Mchaffie EATS/0010/02 18 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Quantum Business Media v Mark Hayes UKEAT/0593/03 18 Dec 2003 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation Â R Dillon v Ford Motor Company Ltd UKEAT/456/03; [2003] UKEAT 0456_03_1812 18 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect [ Bailii ] Â Quantum Business Media v Mark Hayes 18 Dec 2003 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â R Dillon v Ford Motor Company Ltd UKEAT/456/03 19 Dec 2003 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â P Varghai v Caffyns Plc UKEAT/0864/03 19 Dec 2003 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â P Varghai v Caffyns Plc UKEAT/0864/03 19 Dec 2003 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Inferring discrimination 1 Cites Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Discrimination - From: 2003 To: 2003