

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: 2004 To: 2004 This page lists 300 cases, and was prepared on 27 May 2018. Â Copal Castings Limited v Hinton UKEAT/0903/04 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J Burke Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EAT ] Â Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others [2005] ICR 222 2004 EAT Discrimination, Employment 1 Citers Â Chaudhary v the Secretary of State for Health UKEAT/0512/04 and UKEAT/0513/04 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination, Health Professions EAT Race Discrimination - Burden of proof. [ EAT ] Â Response 2000 International Plc v King UKEAT/0198/05 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Pregnancy and discrimination. [ EAT ] Â Ms P Halai v Integrated Asian Advice Service UKEAT/855/03 5 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â W v X, Y, Z UKEAT/494/03 6 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â W v X Y Z UKEAT/494/03 6 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Wilkie QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â KB v National Health Service Pensions Agency and Secretary of State for Health Times, 16 January 2004; [2004] EUECJ C-117/01 7 Jan 2004 ECJ Discrimination The claimant had for a number of years had a relationship with a trans-sexual. They had been unable to marry because English law would not recognise a marriage. She compained that on her death her partner would be unable to claim the pension awarded to a partner. Held: The effect of the law was discriminatory. Legislation which prevented such a mariage was in principle discriminatory. "The decision to restrict certain benefits to married couples while excluding all persons who live together without being married is either a matter for the legislature to decide or a matter for the national courts as to the interpretation of domestic legal rules, and individuals cannot claim that there is discrimination on grounds of sex, prohibited by Community law . . ." and "Transsexuals suffer the anguish of being convinced that they are victims of an error on the part of nature. Many have chosen suicide. At the end of a long and painful process, in which hormone treatment is followed by delicate surgery, medical science can offer them partial relief by making their external physical features correspond so far as possible to those of the sex to which they feel they belong. To my mind it is wrong that the law should take refuge in purely technical expedients in order to deny full recognition of an assimilation which has been so painfully won." EC Treaty 14 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â P Pathak R Chaudhary v Secretary of State for Health and others the Specialist Training Authority Appeal Panel and others UKEAT/909/03; [2004] UKEAT 0036_03_0801; UKEAT/36/03 8 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Pugsley Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College for Education and Employment; ECJ 13-Jan-2004 - C-256/01; [2004] EUECJ C-256/01; [2004] ECR I-00873; [2004] ICR 1328 Â Burns v Royal Mail Group Plc (No 2) (Formerly Consignia Plc, Humphrey UKEAT/873/02/(2); [2004] UKEAT 0873_02_1401; [2004] ICR 1103; [2004] IRLR 425 14 Jan 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Employment, Discrimination The hearing was an adjourned second hearing. The appeal on sex discrimination had been dismissed, and the balance of the claim for constructive unfair dismissal was adjourned. At that adjourned hearing the claimant now sought to re-open the claims already remitted. Held. The EAT adopted the practice in Emery Reimbold. The earlier remission of the case had not disposed of the appeal, but was for the purpose of doing so. Could it now therefore be appealed? The employment appeal tribunal, in a case where an employment tribunal is alleged to have failed in its judgment to deal with an issue at all, or to have given no reasons or no adequate reasons for a decision, may invite the employment tribunal to clarify, supplement or give its written reasons before proceeding to a final determination of the appeal. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Martin v Lancehawk Limited T/A European Telecom Solutions UKEAT/0525/03; [2004] UKEAT 0525_03_2203 15 Jan 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect The (male) managing director of the respondent company had dismissed a (female) fellow employee when an affair which they had been having came to an end. She claimed that the dismissal was on the ground of her sex because "but for" her being a woman the affair would never have occurred. Held. Rimer J referred to the Tribunal's finding that the dismissal was "because of the breakdown of the relationship" and continued: "[T]he critical issue posed by section 1(1)(a) [is] whether Mr Lovering dismissed Mrs Martin "on the ground of her sex", an issue requiring a consideration of why he dismissed her. As we have said, we interpret the tribunal as having found that the dismissal was because of the breakdown of the relationship. That, therefore, was the reason for the dismissal, not because she was a woman. We accept that, but for her sex, there would have been no affair in the first place. It could, however, equally be said that there would have been no such affair "but for" the facts (for example) that she was her parents' daughter, or that she had taken up the employment with Lancehawk. But it did not appear to us to follow that reasons such as those could fairly be regarded as providing the reason for her dismissal." Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â V Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire UKEAT/445/02; [2004] UKEAT 0445_02_1601 16 Jan 2004 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â K Redman v Royal Bershire Fire Authority UKEAT/201/03; [2004] UKEAT 0201_03_0501 21 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Laing Limited v Yassin Essa [2004] EWCA Civ 2; Times, 29 January 2004; [2004] IRLR 313; [2004] ICR 746 21 Jan 2004 CA Lord Justice Clarke Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Pill Employment, Discrimination, Damages The claimant had been awarded damages for race discrimination. The employer appealed. Held: In a claim for damages under the 1976 Act, it was not necessary to show that the damage suffered was reasonably forseeable. Pill LJ said: "I see no need to superimpose the requirement or prerequisite of reasonable foreseeability upon the statutory tort in order to achieve the balance of interests which the law of tort requires. It is sufficient if the damage flows directly and naturally from the wrong. While there is force in the submission that, to prevent multiplicity of claims and frivolous claims, a control mechanism beyond that of causation is needed, reliance upon the good sense of employment tribunals in finding the facts and reaching conclusions on them is a sufficient control mechanism, in my view. As a mechanism for protecting a defendant against damages which, on policy grounds, may appear too remote, a further control by way of a reasonable foreseeability test is neither appropriate nor necessary in present circumstances." Clarke LJ said: "In all the circumstances we agree with Pill LJ that there is no need to add a further requirement of reasonable foreseeability and that the robust good sense of employment tribunals can be relied upon to ensure that compensation is awarded only where there really is a causal link between the act of discrimination and the injury alleged. No such compensation will of course be payable where there has been a break in the chain of causation or where the claimant has failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate his loss." Race Relations Act 1976 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â K Redman v Royal Bershire Fire Authority UKEAT/201/03 21 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â T Hewett v Motorola Ltd UKEAT/526/03; [2004] UKEAT 0526_03_1602 23 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] Â T Hewett v Motorola Ltd UKEAT/526/03 23 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Darlington and Durham County Racial Equality Council v S K Dale UKEAT/749/03 27 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Wilkie QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings Â Darlington and Durham County Racial Equality Council v Ms S K Dale UKEAT/749/03 27 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Injury to feelings. [ EATn ] Â Woodhouse v Britannic Assurance Plc [2004] UKEAT 0132_03_2901; UKEAT/0132/03 29 Jan 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â J A Martin v Connell Estate Agents UKEAT/761/03 & UKEAT/762/03 30 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â J A Martin v Connell Estate Agents UKEAT/761/03 & UKEAT/762/03; [2004] UKEAT 0761_03_3001 30 Jan 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect [ Bailii ] Â Leckey v Next Retail Ltd [2004] NIFET 313_99 4 Feb 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â D Jeffrey v Strategic Rail Authority, Inspector Paulrichards UKEAT/631/03 4 Feb 2004 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Mingeley v Pennock and Another (T/A Amber Cars) Times, 04 March 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 328; Gazette, 18 March 2004; [2004] ICR 727; [2004] IRLR 373 9 Feb 2004 CA Buxton, Maurice Kay LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse Discrimination, Employment The claimant taxi driver sought to assert race discrimination. The respondent argued that he had not been an employee, but an independent contractor. Held: The driver was not required by the contract to carry out the driving personally. He would pay a sum each week to be included on the respondent's radio and computer system for allocating work. The test was whether the dominant purpose of the agreement would require him to do the work personally. It did not, and the tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Race Relations Act 1976 78(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Loughlin v Adria Ltd (Preliminary Hearing) [2004] NIFET 1 9 Feb 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Loughlin v Adria Ltd (Preliminary Hearing) [2004] NIFET 425_02 9 Feb 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â J Dehaney v Brent Mind, Ms L Lang; EAT 10-Feb-2004 - UKEAT/0054/03 Â Carter (Formerly McDonagh (General Secretary of, and on Behalf the Labour Party v Ahsan UKEAT/907/03; [2004] UKEAT 0907_03_2402 11 Feb 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Employment, Discrimination EAT Practice and Procedure - Appellate jurisdiction 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â F B Lee v the Home Office UKEAT/893/03 16 Feb 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â F B Lee v the Home Office UKEAT/893/03 16 Feb 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Turesdale v Gillan and others (Unfair Dismissal/Sex Discrimination/Racial Discrimination) [2004] NIIT 17 17 Feb 2004 NIIT Discrimination, Employment [ Bailii ] Â Collins v Royal National Theatre Board Limited [2004] 2 All ER 851; [2004] EWCA Civ 144 17 Feb 2004 CA Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Latham Discrimination, Employment Can an employer's failure to make adjustments to accommodate a disabled employee be unreasonable but justified? Held: The justification under 5(2)(b) must be something other than the circumstances which are taken into account for the purpose of section 6(1): "The clear purpose of s.5(5) is to deny to an employer who has treated a disabled employee less favourably than others any defence of justification which depends directly or indirectly on a breach by the employer of his s.6 duty to make adjustments." Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4 5(2)(b) 6(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Office of National Statistics v Ali [2004] UKEAT 0114_04_1802; UKEAT/0114/04 18 Feb 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Rimer Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Lawal v Northern Spirit Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 208 19 Feb 2004 CA Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Girvan v Queen's University of Belfast [2004] NIFET 214_03 23 Feb 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Gill v Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and Another [2004] NIFET 540_00 23 Feb 2004 FENI Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â John Grooms Housing Association v Burdett UKEAT/937/03 24 Feb 2004 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â John Grooms Housing Association v Burdett UKEAT/937/03 24 Feb 2004 EAT His Hon Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â S Donaldson v Miswa Chemicals Ltd and others UKEAT/0653/03 4 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â S Donaldson v Miswa Chemicals Ltd and others [2004] UKEAT 0653_03_0403; UKEAT/0653/03 4 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â Henry v London Borough of Newham [2004] EWCA Civ 377 5 Mar 2004 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Meade v Pugh and Another [2004] EWHC 408 (QB) 5 Mar 2004 QBD Tugendhat J Discrimination, Defamation The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim. Held: The occasion was one of qualified privilege. The claimant had to establish malice to defeat that defence, and that had not been done. What matters was that there was no evidence that the defendants did not believe the report to be true. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 - Race Relations Act 1976 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Vince-Cain v Orthet Ltd; EAT 5-Mar-2004 - [2004] UKEAT 0801_04_0503; UKEAT/801/03 Â J Medley v Working Mens's Club and Institute Union Limited UKEAT/0782/03 10 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive. [ EATn ] Â J Medley v Working Mens's Club and Institute Union Limited UKEAT/0782/03 10 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive Â Medley v Working Men's Club and Institute Union Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0782_03_1003; UKEAT/782/03/ILB 10 Mar 2004 EAT he Honourable Mr Justice Burton Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Lady members of local club not allowed to be associates of CIU (umbrella organisation). S. 12 of Sex Discrimination Act 1975 not applicable as CIU not relevant organisation and 'associates' are not members. [ Bailii ] Â 1)Chamberlin Solicitors 2) T Emezie v Ms I Emokpae UKEAT/0989/03 15 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Detriment. [ EATn ] Â Chamberlin Solicitors T Emezie v I Emokpae UKEAT/0989/03; [2004] ICR 1476 15 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Detriment 1 Cites 1 Citers Â R Steel v the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police UKEAT/793/03 17 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination. [ EATn ] Â R Steel v the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police UKEAT/793/03 17 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton (P) Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Inferring discrimination Â K Bush v Zurich Financial Services UKEAT/0832/03 18 Mar 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Bush v Zurich Financial Services [2004] UKEAT 0832_03_1803 18 Mar 2004 EAT Wakefield J Employment, Discrimination Appeal by claimant against a decision on a preliminary point by an Employment Tribunal at which it was determined that the Appellant was a disabled person within the meaning of Section 1(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in the period 23 November 1998 to 15 September 2000 but was not such a person in the subsequent period 16 September 2000 to 10 January 2003. Discrimination Act 1995 1(1) [ Bailii ] Â Moore v Nir Company Limited [2004] NIFET 143_00 19 Mar 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Obasa v Chisholm and others [2004] EWCA Civ 432 19 Mar 2004 CA Discrimination, Employment [ Bailii ] Â Olwa v North Glasgow University Hospitals NHS Trust, McGinley 0067/02; [2004] UKEAT 0067_02_2203 22 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â The British Medical Association v Rajendra Chaudhary UKEAT/0804/; [2004] UKEAT 1351_01_2403; UKEAT/1351/01/DA 24 Mar 2004 EAT The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Grimley v Turner and Jarvis Co Ltd; EAT 26-Mar-2004 - [2004] UKEAT 0967_03_2603; UKEAT/0967/03 Â Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium [2004] UKEAT 0639_03_2603; UKEAT/0639/03 26 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Clark Employment, Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd UKEAT/0815/03; [2004] UKEAT 0815_03_3003 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Employment, Discrimination EAT Alleged failure by the ET to make appropriate findings of fact, to deal properly with issue of comparators, and to follow the process indicated in the Barton case in respect of the transfer of the burden of proof (section 63A Sex Discrimination Act 1975) - all dismissed - no order for costs.- leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 63A 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â B Kochar v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others UKEAT/0886/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability Â Chief Constable of Merseyside v Constable Sadrudden Husain UKEAT/0881/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability. [ EATn ] Â effrey v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis UKEAT/0888/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability Â Jeffrey v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis UKEAT/0888/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability. [ EATn ] Â Kochar v the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others UKEAT/0886/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability. [ EATn ] Â The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others v Miller, Lockwood, Whatmore, Hassell UKEAT/340/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability. [ EATn ] Â Michelle K Alabaster v Woolwich plc,and Secretary of State for Social Security C-147/02; [2004] EUECJ C-147/02; C-147/02 30 Mar 2004 ECJ European, Discrimination Europa Social policy - Men and women - Equal pay - Pay during maternity leave - Calculation of amount - Whether to include a pay rise. The claimant had been awarded a pay rise before taking maternity leave. She complained that her award would not becalculated to reflect that salary increase. Held: Article 141 required any pay rise awarded between the beginning of the reference pay period and the end of maternity leave to be included when the amount of maternity pay is calculated. This principle must be applied whether or not the pay rise is backdated to the period covered by the reference pay. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Yearwood v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis A Fisher UKEAT/0310/03; [2004] UKEAT 0310_03_2805 30 Mar 2004 EAT McMullen QC HHJ Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability 1. The reference to agency in the SDA and RRA is to agency at common law. There is no alternative construction, in order to give effect to the purpose of the ET Directive. 2. A police officer appointed as investigating or supervising officer in statutory police disciplinary proceedings is not the agent of the chief officer of police who is not liable for unlawful discrimination by those officers. A civilian officer may be an agent or may be carrying out management functions for which the chief officer is responsible. 3. Delay in re-fixing an adjourned hearing may make the Decision unsafe. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Chief Constable of Merseyside v Constable Sadrudden Husain UKEAT/0881/03 30 Mar 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability Â Igen Ltd (Fomerly Leeds Careers Guidance) and others v K Wong UKEAT/0944/03; [2004] UKEAT 0944_03_1205 5 Apr 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination Burden of proof in Race Relations Act 1976 s 54A. Whether a prima facie case had been made to transfer the burden. Application of Barton v Investec. Race Relations Act 1976 54A 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Ministry of Defence v Armstrong and Another [2004] UKEAT 1239_02_0704; [2004] UKEAT 1239_02_0704; [2004] IRLR 672 7 Apr 2004 EAT Cox J Employment, Discrimination The MOD (the Appellants) contend that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in holding, in a Decision promulgated on 17 September 2002 after a preliminary hearing, that they had not established a "material factor" defence to the Respondents' claims for equal pay, pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â M Dixon v the Automobile Association Ltd UKEAT/0874/03 20 Apr 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Douglas and Others v Islington London Borough Council Times, 27 May 2004 23 Apr 2004 EAT Rimer J, P R A Jacques, R A Vickers Discrimination The claimants had been employed by the respondent as caretakers and cleaners. Their work unit was transferred to an outside contractor. They claimed under equal pay legislation, and now appealed dismissal of their claim. Held: Some caretakers were still employed on an earlier scheme under which they continued to receive bonus payments. The applicants did not. When a comparator was chosen, the job of jobbing assistant was used but evaluated locally not nationally. This was a material departure from the proper procedure. The Act required the evaluation of the claimants' and comparators' jobs to be within the same study. If not there would not be comparison of like with like. The decision stood. Equal Pay Act 1970 1(5) Â Paterson and others v London Borough of Islington and others [2004] UKEAT 0347_03_2304 23 Apr 2004 EAT Rimer J Employment, Discrimination Equal Pay Act 1970 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Lisk-Carew v Birmingham City Council [2004] EWCA Civ 565 23 Apr 2004 CA Employment, Discrimination Whether there had been victimisation after discrimination claim. [ Bailii ] Â David John Booth v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council UKEAT/0007/04 23 Apr 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â M Carter (Sued on Her Own Behalf of the Other Members of the Labour Party) v Raghib Ahsan UKEAT/0907/03 23 Apr 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Comparison. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ EATn ] Â David John Booth v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council UKEAT/0007/04; [2004] UKEAT 0007_04_2105 23 Apr 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability The claimant had been off work as a result of work related stress. Eventually he was dismissed. He appealed a finding that his condition had not amounted to a disability within the Act. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [ Bailii ] Â Lisk-Carew v Birmingham City Council Dr S Sharp Times, 07 June 2004; Gazette, 20 May 2004 25 Apr 2004 CA Kennedy, May, Hooper LJJ Discrimination, Damages The claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal and race discrimination had been dismissed, but a claim of victimisation had succeeded. Held: There was no inconsistency in the findings. In such a case, damages should be limited to the sum for injured feelings (in this case £5,000). Race Relations Act 1976 1 2(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Shahina Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langley Wood School UKEAT/1157/02 26 Apr 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 5(2) 1 Citers Â Felix Uzoho v Anglian Water Services Ltd ("Anglian Water") UKEAT/0915/03 26 Apr 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Peter Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EAT ] Â Â Regina (Amicus etc) v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Admn 26-Apr-2004 - [2004] EWHC 860 (Admin); [2004] IRLR 430; [2007] ICR 1176 Â Goyal v Fife Health Board and Another [2004] UKEAT 0083_03_2704 27 Apr 2004 EAT Burton J P Employment, Discrimination EAT 1. Employment Tribunal Chairmen should always number the paragraphs of their decisions and use consecutive paragraph numbering in doing so (and with as few subparagraphs as possible, but if using such should continue the main paragraph number e.g. 12.1, 12.2 etc). 2. Employment Tribunal failed to comply with Zafar and Bahl in finding direct (while rejecting indirect) race discrimination and without setting out and rejecting non-discriminatory justifications: remitted to fresh tribunal: Applicant's cross-appeal on quantum dismissed. [ Bailii ] Â M Fraser v London Borough of Richmond on Thames UKEAT/888/02 & UKEAT/0069/03 30 Apr 2004 EAT His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive Â the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington v D Guest UKEAT/0129/04 30 Apr 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â Â A v West Yorkshire Police; HL 6-May-2004 - [2004] UKHL 21; Times, 07 May 2004; Gazette, 20 May 2004; [2004] 2 WLR 1209; 17 BHRC 585; [2004] 2 CMLR 37; [2004] UKHRR 694; [2004] 2 FCR 160; [2004] 3 All ER 145; [2004] Eu LR 841; [2004] ICR 806; [2005] 1 AC 51; [2004] HRLR 25; [2004] IRLR 573 Â Dr Mohamed Abdel-Mawgoud v West Kent NHS and Social Care Trust UKEAT/0084/04 7 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Olatokun v Ikon Office Solutions UKEAT/0074/04; [2004] UKEAT 0074_04_1005 10 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Direct EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â T-Mobile (UK) Ltd v DJ Kearney [2004] UKEAT 0946_03_1105; UKEAT/0946/03 11 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â T-Mobile (Uk) Ltd v Dj Kearney UKEAT/0946/03 11 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â A Skinner v Leisure Connection Plc UKEAT/0059/04; [2004] UKEAT 0059_04_1205 12 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â Johnson v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police UKEAT/0884/03; [2004] UKEAT 0884_03_1705 17 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â Bhagwandeen v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] UKPC 21 17 May 2004 PC Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell Constitutional, Discrimination Trinidad and Tobago - The Board was asked whether the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) had treated the appellant unequally and/or unfairly and had discriminated against him in refusing to recommend him for promotion from the rank of constable to that of corporal, contrary to section 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution. [ Bailii ] Â Johnson v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police UKEAT/0884/03 17 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EAT ] Â A M Mccarthy v Russell Jones and Walker UKEAT/0102/04 18 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Miranda Jane Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School UKEAT/0820/03 18 May 2004 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers Â Ms Miranda Jane Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School UKEAT/0820/03 18 May 2004 EAT Mr Commissioner Howell Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â A M Mccarthy v Russell Jones and Walker UKEAT/0102/04 18 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Â Khan v Trident Safeguards Ltd and others [2004] EWCA Civ 624; Times, 28 May 2004 19 May 2004 CA The Hon Mrs Justice Arden Dbe Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Wall Employment, Insolvency, Discrimination The claimant had ben made bankrupt. The defendant argued that his claim vested in the trustee. Held: A discrimination claim was hybrid in nature rather than purely personal, and so it vested in the trustee. However the real issue was the actual claim made. In this case the claimant could seek only the personal elements for damages to injured feelings. If the claim was so limited, it would cease to be a hybrid claim, and he would have the right to bring the action. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â London Borough of Ealing v Rihal [2004] EWCA Civ 623 21 May 2004 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â S J Lucas v Ministry of Defence UKEAT/0505/02 & UKEAT/0506/02 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Ministry of Defence v Re V L F Gandiya UKEAT/1059/02 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Saggar v Ministry of Defence UKEAT/1385/01; [2004] UKEAT 1385_01_1006 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Armed Forces Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, and that jurisdiction was not created by minimal presence here. Held: The provisions as to jurisdiction in the two Acts are identical. The jurisdiction had to be founded at the date of the hearing. A minimal presence in the United Kingdom could not be used to found jurisdiction. Race Relations Act 1976 - Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â British Telecommunications Plc v Lynn Pelling EATS/0093/03 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â St Helens Mbc v J E Derbyshire and others (38) UKEAT/0952/03 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â J Wrona v Honda of the UK Manufacturing UKEAT/0975/03 25 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Detriment. [ EATn ] Â Ms S J Lucas v Ministry of Defence UKEAT/0505/02 & UKEAT/0506/02 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â St Helens MBC v J E Derbyshire and others (38) UKEAT/0952/03 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation Â British Telecommunications Plc v Lynn Pelling EATS/0093/03 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â J Wrona v Honda of the UK Manufacturing UKEAT/0975/03 25 May 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Detriment Â Ministry of Defence v Rev L F Gandiya UKEAT/1059/02 25 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EAT ] Â Shahina Murphy v Slough Borough Council, Governing Body of Langley Wood School UKEAT/1157/02 26 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Shahina Murphy v Slough Borough Council Governing Body of Langley Wood School UKEAT/1157/02; [2004] UKEAT 1157_02_2605; [2004] ICR 1163 26 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Silber Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5(1) 5(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â T R Mcpherson (Microfilm Services) Ltd v Rosalind Ann Charles EATS/0117/03; [2004] UKEAT 0117_03_2805 28 May 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - Article 141 [ Bailii ] Â C Francis v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UKEAT/0942/03; [2004] UKEAT 0942_03_0806 8 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â Ms C Francis v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham UKEAT/0942/03 8 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Metropolitan Police Service v C Shoebridge UKEAT/0234/03 8 Jun 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Metropolitan Police Service v C Shoebridge UKEAT/0234/03; [2004] UKEAT 0234_03_0806 8 Jun 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â Brumfitt v Ministry of Defence, Fitzpatrick [2004] UKEAT 1004_03_2707; UKEAT/1004/03 10 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination A complaint of direct sex discrimination on the grounds of sexual harassment brought by a woman requires a male comparator, either actual or hypothetical. Furthermore, see decision of House of Lords in MacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland and Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield Secondary School do not conflict with European law. [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Husain v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Polce, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police UKEAT/0217/04 15 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â S Husain v The Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Polce, the Chief Constable of South Wales Police UKEAT/0217/04 15 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Â Begum, Regina (on the Application of) v Denbigh High School; Admn 15-Jun-2004 - [2004] EWHC 1389 (Admin); Times, 18 June 2004; [2004] ELR 374 Â Chamberlin Solicitors v Emokpae [2004] UKEAT 0989_03_1506 15 Jun 2004 EAT Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ministry of Defence Police v Sa Armstrong UKEAT/551/03 16 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Aon Training Limited (Formerly Totalamber Plc), A O'Neill v Ian Dore UKEAT/0974/03 16 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â Ministry of Defence Police v S A Armstrong UKEAT/551/03; [2004] UKEAT 0551_03_1606; [2004] IRLR 672 16 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â J J Simms v the London Borough of Newham UKEAT/0767/03 17 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â J J Simms v The London Borough of Newham UKEAT/0767/03; [2004] UKEAT 0767_03_1706 17 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Birtles Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification - This appeal involves alleged errors by the Employment Tribunal in its finding that the Appellant was disabled under section 1 of the DDA 1995 in respect of his ability to perform normal day-to-day activities as defined by section 4(1) of DDA. EAT hold no error of law, thus entitled to reach its conclusion on the facts. [ Bailii ] Â John Townsend v Office for National Statistics [2004] UKEAT 0933_03_2607; UKEAT/0933/03 18 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Nottingham City Council v R A Green Atkins I Bailey UKEAT/0904/03 21 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Nottingham City Council v 1) R A Green 2) Atkins 3) I Bailey UKEAT/0904/03 21 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Clark Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Â Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza; HL 21-Jun-2004 - [2004] UKHL 30; [2004] 3 WLR 113; [2004] 2 AC 557; [2004] 3 All ER 411; 16 BHRC 671; [2004] 2 FCR 481; [2004] UKHRR 827; [2004] 2 P & CR DG17; [2004] 2 FLR 600; [2004] Fam Law 641; [2004] NPC 100; [2004] 27 EGCS 128 Â Â Villalba v Merrill Lynch and Co Inc Merrill Lynch Europe Ltd (Cayman) Merill Lynch International Bank Ltd; EAT 21-Jun-2004 - UKEAT/0461/04; [2004] UKEAT 0461_04_0107 Â Carter v Ahsan [2004] UKEAT 0907_03_2106 21 Jun 2004 EAT Silber J Discrimination The claimant alleged discrimination in the failure to select him as a candidate. As a Pakistani, he was excluded by a decision not to select such a candidate for this constituency after allegations (later shown false) had been made against that community in that constituency. His claim of direct race discrimination was upheld by the tribunal. Held: The finding was upheld. Referring to Showboat: “In our view there is no reason why the three Pakistani Muslim factors cannot be regarded as “racial considerations” or “reasons based on race.”” 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Peter Stephen Gowman v Ceredigion County Council UKEAT/0155/04; [2004] UKEAT 0155_04_2008 23 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â Peter Stephen Gowman v Ceredigion County Council UKEAT/0155/04 23 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â E Groves v Astrazeneca UK Ltd UKEAT/232/04; [2004] UKEAT 0232_04_2406 24 Jun 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Beatson Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â James Greig v Fife Council EATS/0021/04; [2004] UKEAT 0021_04_2906 29 Jun 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Edworthy v YMCA South Devon Ltd UKEAT/0867/03 30 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Edworthy v YMCA South Devon Ltd UKEAT/0867/03; [2004] UKEAT 0867_03_1608 30 Jun 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment [ Bailii ] Â K F Bartlett Ltd v C Toms UKEAT/0131/04; [2004] UKEAT 0131_04_1308 1 Jul 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â Council of the City of Manchester v Sharon Romano, Yvonne Samariz [2004] EWCA (Civ) 834; Times, 27 July 2004; [2004] HLR 878; [2005] 1 WLR 2775 1 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Brooke Sir Martin Nourse Lord Justice Jacob Housing, Discrimination, Human Rights The authority sought to evict their tenant on the ground that he was behaving in a way which was a nuisance to neighbours. The tenant was disabled, and claimed discrimination. Held: In secure tenancies, the authority had to consider the reasonableness of making a possession order, and in situations where it was enforcing a possession oder, whether it had a discretion, and how that discretion should be enforced. It was necessary to examine both whether there was an actual subjective view that a tenant was a nuisance and also whether that view was objectively justified. In each case the authority had met these requirements, and the appeals against the possession orders were dismissed. The court approved the definition of health as being "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease and infirmity". Housing Act 1985 Sch2 Gr5 - Disability Discrimination Act 1995 22 - Human Rights Act 1998 3 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32; Times, 05 July 2004; [2004] ICR 954; 2004 GWD 23-505; [2004] IRLR 651; 2004 SLT 942; [2004] 4 All ER 303 1 Jul 2004 HL Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood Discrimination, Scotland The claimant was employed as a street sweeper. She suffered injury to her health making it difficult to do her work. She was dismissed, and claimed that being disabled, the employer had not made reasonable adjustments to find alternative work for her. The Council had considered her for other posts, but had held competitive interviews at which she did not succeed. Held: The Act entails positive discrimination. Employers are required to take steps to help disabled people which they are not required to take for others. The duty is not simply to make adjustments, but rather one to make adjustments for the purpose specified. The tribunal should have asked itself whether it would have been reasonable for the employer to adjust its competitive interview policy to give effect to its duty to the claimant. The matter would have to be remitted for that consideration. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 - Local Government and Housing Act 1989 7 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ House of Lords ] Â K F Bartlett Ltd v C Toms UKEAT/0131/04 1 Jul 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Manpower UK Ltd v B L Mulford UKEAT/0148/03 2 Jul 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â The Home Office v A Bailey and others [2004] UKEAT 0060_04_2707; UKEAT/0060/04 2 Jul 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Wilkie QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - Material factor defence The EAT allowed an appeal by the Home Office from a decision of an Employment Tribunal which had determined as a preliminary issue that the Home Office was required objectively to justify the provision of less favourable terms of employment to the appellants, who had been evaluated as performing work of equal value to that of the male comparators, but who were paid at a lower rate and enjoyed less beneficial terms and conditions of employment in other respects than those comparators? The ET determined that issue in the affirmative. Held: The Home Office was not required to provide that justification. The reasoning was circular. Equal Pact Act 1970 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others [2004] EWCA Civ 844; Times, 08 July 2004 2 Jul 2004 CA Employment, Discrimination Part time retained firefighters claimed discrimination under the Regulations when their conditions of service were compared with those of full-time firefighters. They appealed a finding that they had been employed under different types of contract and that therefore no claim arose. Held: There was insufficient reason to treat the retained firefighters as being employed under a different category of employee. It was notoriously difficult to categorise employment contracts. Nevertheless there was evidence to support the finding that the actual work undertaken by the two groups differed, with the full-timers having a significant set of additional skills and duties. Despite the error, the decision stood. Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 - Employment Relations Act 1999 19 - Council Directive 97/81/EC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Sivanandan v Hackney Action for Racial Equality etc UKEAT/0812/03; [2004] UKEAT 0472_04_0607; UKEAT/0472/04 6 Jul 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments - Practice and Procedure - Disclosure. EAT Practice and Procedure - Disclosure. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] - [ EAT ] Â Nottinghamshire County Council v Meikle [2004] EWCA Civ 859; Times, 15 July 2004; [2005] ICR 1; (2004) 80 BMLR 129; [2004] IRLR 703; [2004] 4 All ER 97 8 Jul 2004 CA Thorpe, Keene LJJ, Bennett J Discrimination, Employment The claimant was a teacher who had come to suffer a sight disability. She complained that her employers had failed to make reasonable accomodation for her disability, and subsequently she resigned claiming constructive dismissal and damages for discrimination. The employer contended that she had not been dismissed within the section. Held: There had been conflicting decisions. The word 'dismissed' in this context had to be construed widely. For the purposes of section 4(2) the 1995 Act, a constructive dismissal was a dismissal. The appeal was itself dismissed. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 4(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Wilson v Southern Counties Fuels Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0032_04_1207; UKEAT/0032/04 12 Jul 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. - Dismissal of claim for disability discrimination on basis that Applicant not disabled.(i) No perversity and proper application of Morgan in finding that the mental impairment was not a clinically well-recognised illness. (ii) It is inappropriate to give a rolled-up answer to the 3 questions of (a) effect on day to day activities (b) substantial (c) long term. But in the light of finding on (i) appeal fell to be dismissed. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Â Medical Protection Society, Dr Bown, Dr Hickey v Dr Sadek; CA 12-Jul-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 865; Times, 02 September 2004 Â Â Madarassy v Nomura International Plc; EAT 13-Jul-2004 - UKEAT/0326/03; [2004] UKEAT 0326_03_1612 Â D, Regina (on the Application of) v Plymouth High School for Girls [2004] EWHC 1923 (Admin) 13 Jul 2004 Admn Mr Justice Collins Discrimination, Education [ Bailii ] Â David Law v Pace Micro Technology Plc [2004] EWCA Civ 923 15 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Mummery Potter, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Dyson Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 [ Bailii ] Â Paul Higham of 1 Pump Court Chambers v Meurig Iestyn Horton [2003] EWCA Civ 941; Times, 21 July 2004 15 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Laddie, The Hon Mr Justice Laddie Lord Justice Jonathan Parker Discrimination, Legal Professions The claimant said he had suffered disability discrimination at the hands of the defendant, a barristers set. He had been accepted as a pupil, but then applied for a deferral which was refused. It was agreed that the set of chambers was a trade organisation. Held: In the light of the rights and duties of the pupil within the organisation, a pupil was not a member of a chambers in any sense to give rise to a duty under the Act. (Laddies dissenting) The fact that he was not a full member did not mean that he was not a member within the Act. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 13 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Kahn v The University of Warwick Professor Paliwala, Professor Mcconville; EAT 20-Jul-2004 - UKEAT/1223/02_2007; [2004] UKEAT 1223_02_2007 Â Heath v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis Times, 22 July 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 493; [2005] ICR 329; [2005] IRLR 270 20 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Auld Holman Mr Justice Holman Lord Justice Neuberger Police, Discrimination The female civilian officer alleged sex discrimination against her by a police officer. Her complaint was heard at an internal disciplinary. She alleged sexual harrassment, and was further humiliated by the all male board's treatment of her complaint. The complaint now was solely as to her treatment by the Board. Held: The body was a quasi-judicial body and as such its members enjoyed judicial immunity in their actions. It decided issues akin to civil or criminal issues, and had procedures akin to a court. The claim must fail. Auld LJ said: "As the employment tribunal well described in paras 9(o)-(q) of its extended reasons, and as the Employment Appeal Tribunal also found, it attaches to anything said or done by anybody in the course of judicial proceedings whatever the nature of the claim made in respect of such behaviour or statement, except for suits for malicious prosecution and prosecution for perjury and proceedings for contempt of court. That is because the rule is there, not to protect the person whose conduct in court might prompt such a claim, but to protect the integrity of the judicial process and hence the public interest. Given that rationale for the rule, there can be no logical basis for differentiating between different types of claim in its application." Applying Marrinan, Auld LJ said: "The absolute immunity from suit is a core immunity in our system, critical to the integrity and effectiveness of our judicial system, which, save for a few well defined exceptions identified in para 17 above, applies to all forms of collateral action however worthy the claim and however much it may be in the public interest to ventilate it. Claims of unlawful discrimination are clearly of that importance, but no more than many others, such as the citizen's right to protect his own good name or good character or to claim for conspiracy to injure or for misfeasance in public office, say, in giving evidence in a criminal trial resulting in the claimant's loss of liberty." Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(2)(b) 41(1) - EC Council Directive 76/207 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â Obasa v London Borough of Islington [2004] EWCA Civ 1237 22 Jul 2004 CA Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Sinclair Roche and Temperley and others v Heard and Another [2004] UKEAT 0738_03_2207; UKEAT/0738/03; [2004] IRLR 763 22 Jul 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex discrimination claim by former partners against the partnership and individual partners: direct discrimination (in both cases) and indirect discrimination (in one) found by ET. (i) ET must, if ordering written submissions, allow sufficient time for them to be prepared and in particular to be considered and assimilated by the other party and the Tribunal before oral submissions. (ii) Findings of direct and indirect discrimination set aside and remitted. Respondent must be entitled to give, and have considered, justification and/or non-discriminatory explanations for an adequately established prima facie case of unfavourable treatment or discrimination (Anya, Wolff and Bahl applied). (iii) Remitted to same Tribunal - principles for the taking of such course set out. (iv) Issues of knowingly aiding and of indemnity / contribution between partners for acts of discrimination considered and remitted. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Regina (on the Application of Susan Joan Smith) v Secretary of State for Defence - and -Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWHC 1797 (Admin) 26 Jul 2004 QBD Mr Justice Wilson Family, Discrimination, Human Rights The claimant was divorced from her husband, a member of the armed forces, and was to receive a share of his pension. She complained that although he had been able to take his share of the pension early, she had been obliged to wait. Held: There was no discrimination. The provisions fell within the ambit of article 8, but there was no infringement. The alternative might lead to absurd results. The scheme was clear, and could be allowed for as necessary in the negotiations in the divorce, though in this case no external transfer of the rights was available to the claimant. Pension Schemes Act 1993 101C(1) 101B - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â James Greig v DTZ Management Services Ltd EATS/0033/04; [2004] UKEAT 0033_04_2707 27 Jul 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment, Scotland EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Â Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council Jarvis Plc v Degnan, Carter, Forster, Johnson; EAT 27-Jul-2004 - UKEAT/0321/04; [2004] UKEAT 0321_04_2707; UKEAT/321/04/SM Â Spicer v Government of Spain [2004] EWCA Civ 1046; Times, 10 September 2004 29 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Wall The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper Employment, Discrimination The claimant worked at a school in London operated by the respondent, and he was paid by them. Spanish teachers received relocation allowances, and he complained that this was discriminatory. The respondent had failed to comply with the order made by the EAT. Held: The failure by the respondent to comply with the order meant that it was now debarred form seeking to rely upon a defence of objective justification. Spanish civil servants relocated here received a higher overall income than their English counterparts. The EAT had erred in finding no detriment to the claimant. In doing so it had readmitted at the back door the defence of objective justification turned away at the front. Race Relations Act 1976 1 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Law Society v Bahl Times, 07 October 2004; [2004] EWCA Civ 1070; [2004] IRLR 799 30 Jul 2004 CA Legal Professions, Discrimination The claimant had succeeded before the employment tribunal in her claim of race discrimination by the respondent and senior officers. She now appealed the reversal of that judgment. The claimant asked the tribunal to draw inferences of discrimination from her unreasonable treatment. Held: The ability and readiness of a tribunal to infer discriminatory motives from unreasonable behaviour applied only in the absence of an explanation or justification given by the respondent. The tribunal had not properly dealt with the question of what reasons other than discrimination might have been given for the claimant's treatment. There was no explanation or evidential basis for the findings of discrimination. The appeal was dismissed. 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â V v Addey and Stanhope School [2004] EWCA Civ 1065; Times, 28 September 2004; [2004] 4 All ER 1056; [2005] 1 CMLR 3; [2005] ICR 231 30 Jul 2004 CA Lord Justice Mummery President, The Vice President Lord Justice Brooke Employment, Discrimination The respondent resisted a claim of unfair dismissal and race discrimination on the basis that the employment contract was illegal since the claimant was an immigrant and unable to work without a work permit. Held: The Court of Appeal upheld a defence of illegality to a teacher's complaint against a school of unlawful discrimination by dismissal on racial grounds. The teacher was an asylum-seeker who was not entitled to work in the UK without a work permit, which he never obtained. This not a case where the applicant has been working in good faith in the belief that it was lawful for him to work. As to the illegal conduct here (a) it was that of the applicant; (b) it was criminal; (c) it went far beyond the manner in which one party performed what was otherwise a lawful employment contract; (d) it went to the basic content of an employment situation-work; (e) the duty not to discriminate arises from an employment situation which, without a permit, was unlawful from top to bottom and from beginning to end. The teacher's employment "was unlawful from top to bottom and from beginning to end". The court had "to consider whether the applicant's claim arises out of or is so clearly connected or inextricably bound up or linked with the illegal conduct of the applicant that the court could not permit the applicant to recover compensation without appearing to condone that conduct." Mummery LJ analysed the inextricable link test: "Although Hall's case . . uses some of the familiar language of legal and factual causation ('connection', 'link'), the test does not restrict the tribunal to a causation question. Matters of fact and degree have to be considered: the circumstances surrounding the applicant's claim and the illegal conduct, the nature and seriousness of the illegal conduct, the extent of the applicant's involvement in it and the character of the applicant's claim are all matters relevant to determining whether the claim is so "inextricably bound up with" the applicant's illegal conduct that, by permitting the applicant to recover compensation, the tribunal might appear to condone the illegality." Immigration Act 1971 24 - Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003 - Council Directive 2000/43/EC 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â County Durham Probation Board v Johnson [2004] UKEAT 0350_04_3007; UKEAT/0350/04 30 Jul 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium [2004] EWCA Civ 1246 30 Jul 2004 CA Discrimination Race Relations Act 1976 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Â Orthet Ltd v Vince-Cain; EAT 12-Aug-2004 - [2004] UKEAT 0801_03_1208; UKEAT/0801/03(2); [2004] IRLR 857; [2005] ICR 374 Â Jeffrey-Shaw v Shopshire County Premier Football League, Shopshire County Football Association UKEAT/0320/04 17 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Discrimination by other bodies. [ EAT ] Â Jeffrey-Shaw v Shopshire County Premier Football League Shopshire County Football Association [2004] UKEAT 0320_04_1609; UKEAT/0320/04 17 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Discrimination by other bodies - Race Discrimination Section 12 Race Relations Act 1976. Definition of qualifying body and profession of vocation. Did it apply to amateur footballer and local football league authorities? Race Relations Act 1976 12 [ Bailii ] Â Barry Kail v North Herts and Stevenage Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0216/04 18 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Pugsley Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation Â Barry Kail v North Herts and Stevenage Primary Care Trust UKEAT/0216/04 18 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Pugsley Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â v M S Bruce v Dial House Chester (A Registered Charity) UKEAT/0555/04 20 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Contract workers. [ EATn ] Â Vms Bruce v Dial House Chester(A Registered Charity) UKEAT/0555/04 20 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Contract workers Â Morrison v Key Housing Association EATS/0107/03; [2004] UKEAT 0107_03_2308 23 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Employment, Scotland EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Gholam Hossein Zakeri Dehvasati v Aberdeen City Council EATS/0103/03 23 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Gholam Hossein Zakeri Dehvasati v Aberdeen City Council EATS/0103/03 23 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Theresa Abbott UKEAT/0151/04 25 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation Â the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Theresa Abbott UKEAT/0151/04 25 Aug 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Gner Ltd v Tracy Plank EATS/0036/03 26 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive. [ EATn ] Â GNER Ltd v Tracy Plank EATS/0036/03 26 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive Â Patrick Reilly v P C World EATS/0032/04 27 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Patrick Reilly v P C World EATS/0032/04; [2004] UKEAT 0032_04_2708 27 Aug 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] Â Madden v Preferred Technical Group CHA Limited, Guest [2004] EWCA Civ 1178; [2005] IRLR 46 27 Aug 2004 CA Lord Justice Ward The Right Honourable Lord Justice Hooper Lord Justice Wall Discrimination, Employment The claimant had made a complaint of race discrimination. The complaint was dismissed. Some time later the company dismissed him, and he again lodged a complaint. The tribunal found him unfairly dismissed, but again not discriminated against. Held: The Tribunal had been wrong to ignore any motive for the action taken. When it found no discrimination, it was obliged to give reasons for that finding. It had done so. Whilst the claimant had been treated less favourably than others, it appeared not to have arisen from his race. "Tribunals are not required to draw inferences. They may do so. If they either think that that there is no evidence from which inferences can properly drawn, or if they think the evidence does not warrant the drawing of inferences, they should say so." The reason here was the reason was a long standing personality clash between himself and another worker. Wall LJ said: "I do not accept the argument that the hypothetical comparator in a case under RRA 1976 must be, in effect, a clone of the applicant in every respect (including personality and personal characteristics) except that he or she is a different race. Nothing that I read in the speeches in Shamoon leads me to that conclusion, nor does the statute." Race Relations Act 1976 1 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Morrow v Sperrin Lakeland Health and Social Care Trust [2004] NIFET 411_02 2 Sep 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â John Rutherford and Another v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2004] EWCA Civ 1186; Times, 04 November 2004; [2005] ICR 119 3 Sep 2004 CA Lord Justice Mummery, Lord Justice Potter Lord Justice Scott Baker Employment, Discrimination The claimants alleged that the legislation governing retirement was indirectly discriminatory against men. Though the right not to be unfairly dismissed maximum age limit was the same for men and for women, that did not apply on a redundancy. Held: A great deal depended upon the method of selection of the pool of workers, should it include only those workers affected by the point. The primary focus should be on the proportions of men and women who can comply with the requirement of the disputed rule. The ET should have taken the statistics for the entire workforce, to which the unfair dismissal and redundancy pay requirement of being under 65 applied. In this light there was no substantial difference in treatment. Employment Rights Act 1996 94(1) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Billfields Food Company Limited v P Kontemeniotis, Lillian and Sexton Ltd UKEAT/0096/04 8 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust v Ms C Calliste UKEAT/0138/04 8 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Billfields Food Company Limited v P Kontemeniotis UKEAT/0096/04 8 Sep 2004 EAT (2) Lillian & Sexton Ltd Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment Â Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Trust v C Calliste UKEAT/0138/04 8 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Hoy v Northern Ireland Railways (Translink) [2004] NIFET 458_02 10 Sep 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â HM Prison Service v Beart UKEAT/0279/04; [2004] UKEAT 0279_04_2610 14 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination, Damages EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â A, Regina (on the Application Of) v Hob Moor Community Primary School [2004] EWHC 2165 (Admin) 14 Sep 2004 Admn Education, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â E Collins v The Home Office UKEAT/0166/04/DA 14 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ EATn ] Â E Collins v the Home Office UKEAT/0166/04/DA 14 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification Â Commissioner of Police of Metropolis v Abbott [2004] UKEAT 0151_04_2109 21 Sep 2004 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination Burden of proof, primary findings. Did burden shift? Was burden discharged? Whether to remit to same or different Tribunal. [ Bailii ] Â Dr D Simba v Cardiff County Council UKEAT/0144/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Burden of proof Â Rodgers v Council for Catholic Maintained Schools and others [2004] NIFET 217_02 22 Sep 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Ministry of Defence (Royal Navy) v Adele Macmillan EATS/0003/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive Â Ministry of Defence (Royal Navy) v Adele Macmillan EATS/0003/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive. [ EATn ] Â The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Ms J Nagy, Detective Sergeant Lenthall UKEAT/0399/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive. [ EATn ] Â Dr D Simba v Cardiff County Council UKEAT/0144/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Burden of proof. [ EATn ] Â Sadler v Portsmouth Publishing and Printing Ltd UKEAT/0280/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Other losses. [ EATn ] Â the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v J Nagy Detective Sergeant Lenthall UKEAT/0399/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Equal treatment directive Â Sadler v Portsmouth Publishing and Printing Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0280_04_1510; UKEAT/0280/04 22 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination, Damages EAT Sex Discrimination - Other losses - Sex discrimination - compensation. Deductions because of pre-existing condition and chance of further illness in any event [ Bailii ] Â Millar v Inland Revenue [2004] UKEAT 0022_04_2309 23 Sep 2004 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Whether or not the appellant should be regarded as disabled within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 [ Bailii ] Â Wilson v Commissioners of Inland Revenue and others [2004] NIFET 3133_03 23 Sep 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Millar v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue EATS/0022/04 23 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Millar v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue EATS/0022/04 23 Sep 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EAT ] Â H Ball v London Borough of Waltham Forest UKEAT/0999/03 24 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments Â Quigley v Foyle Health and Social Services Trust and others [2004] NIIT 2619_00 24 Sep 2004 NIIT Northern Ireland, Employment, Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Ms H Ball v London Borough of Waltham Forest UKEAT/0999/03 24 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Rea Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport Ltd UKEAT/0476/04 27 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proofl [ EATn ] Â Rea Moonsar v Fiveways Express Transport Ltd UKEAT/0476/04 27 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof Â Douglas v Manchester City Council and Another [2004] UKEAT 0839_03_2809; UKEAT/0839/03 28 Sep 2004 EAT Her Honour Judge Wakefield Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation - Whether the Appellant was victimised by reason of previous litigation against the Respondent and others and whether there was direct & / or indirect discrimination on grounds of race. EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Brown v Department of Agriculture- Rivers Agency and Another [2004] NIFET 50_00 28 Sep 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Culshaw v Eldonian Group Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0272_04_3009; UKEAT/0272/04 30 Sep 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave - Sex discrimination - No error in ET majority (Chairman dissenting) finding that as a matter of fact the treatment of the Applicant was not related to her pregnancy or maternity leave. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Mccormack v Milligan and others [2004] NIFET 16_03 1 Oct 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Akinmolasire v Camden and Islington Mental Health NHS Trust [2004] EWCA Civ 1351 6 Oct 2004 CA Discrimination, Employment 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Powerhouse Retail Ltd and others v Burroughs and others [2004] EWCA Civ 1281; [2004] OPLR 363; [2005] ICR 222; [2004] IRLR 979; [2004] Pens LR 377 7 Oct 2004 CA Pill, Jonathan Parker LJJ and Laddie J Employment, Discrimination The court considered the non-admission of part time workers to pension scheme benefits after a transfer of employment. Held: (Pill LJ) While the effect of TUPE was that the continuing contract of employment was deemed always to have been with the transferee, the pension rights had been removed from it and it could not be treated as if they had not. This reasoning fits with the wording of section 2(4) of the 1970 Act: "The employment under a contract of employment about which complaint is made is the contract between the transferor and employee, with its equality clause providing pension rights, and the post-transfer contract of employment, shorn as it is by statute of existing pension rights, is not the specific contract of employment for the purposes of section 2(4). The claim is based on the previous contract and, in so far as its terms have not been transferred, it terminated upon the transfer and time began to run. The existence, in each of the contracts, of an equality clause does not mean that they can be treated as the same contract." Equal Pay Act 1970 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â S Williams v Home Office UKEAT/0525/04 11 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Williams v Home Office [2004] UKEAT 0525_04_1110 11 Oct 2004 EAT Employment, Discrimination EAT Race discrimination in respect of payment while off work sick, and upon a phased return to work. It is open to a Tribunal to disbelieve a manager and find the Respondent liable for one act of discrimination and yet find him/ it not responsible for a second alleged act. Employment Tribunal decision upheld. Directions given for remedy hearing. Settlement/ conciliation encouraged. [ Bailii ] Â Williams v Home Office [2004] UKEAT UKEAT_0525_1110; [2004] UKEAT_0525_1110; UKEAT/0525/04 11 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race discrimination in respect of payment while off work sick, and upon a phased return to work. It is open to a Tribunal to disbelieve a manager and find the Respondent liable for one act of discrimination and yet find him/ it not responsible for a second alleged act. Employment Tribunal decision upheld. Directions given for remedy hearing. Settlement/ conciliation encouraged. [ Bailii ] - [ Bailii ] Â GMB Union v M Fenton UKEAT/0484/04; [2004] UKEAT 0484_04__1210; UKEAT/0798/02; [2004] WL 2935807 12 Oct 2004 EAT Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Sex Discrimination S4(2) SDA 1975: was A's allegation false and not made in good faith? The allegation was plainly false and the ET did not, or did not clearly, so find; but insofar as the ET concluded that, though false, it was made in good faith, i.e. that it was not known to be false, then in the light of the evidence not addressed by the ET there was wholly inadequate reasoning, contrary to Meek. Remitted to different Tribunal. Decision that there was victimisation by failure to give industrial support not perverse and correct test applied. Decision made on interest and costs. Sex Discrimination Act 1975 4(2) 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â S W Morrison v Wing Commander A Osborne Ministry of Defence [2004] UKEAT 0442_04_1210; UKEAT/0442/04 12 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation [ Bailii ] Â Wippel v Peek and Cloppenburg GmbH and Co. KG [2005] IRLR 211; [2004] EUECJ C-313/02; [2005] ICR 1604; [2005] 1 CMLR 9 12 Oct 2004 ECJ Advocate General (Kokott) Discrimination ECJ Opinion - Directive 97/81/EC - Directive 76/207/EEC - Social policy - Equal treatment as between part-time and full-time workers - Equal treatment as between male and female workers - Working hours and organisation of working-time. A part-time worker was engaged under a framework contract of employment which lasted in the event from October 1998 to June 2000, but under it the duration and scheduling of any work was determined by agreement (in practice from week to week) between the parties and she was paid on an hourly basis for any hours she was asked and agreed to work (plus sales commission on sales thereby achieved). Her contention was that she was discriminated against because her contract did not contain a fixed weekly working time with a predetermined salary, whether or not she did or did not work for the whole of that working time. Held: That argument was dismissed. Advocate General (Kokott) stated: "Consequently, for the purposes of the Framework Agreement, the term 'worker' is not a Community law concept. Indeed, the personal scope of application of the Framework Agreement is defined by reference to the national law applicable in each case. The term 'worker' therefore has to be defined in reliance on the law, collective agreements and practices in force in each member state. The member states have wide discretionary powers in this respect. Only the very broadest limits can be determined in this respect by reference to Community law. It could therefore constitute a breach of the duty of co-operation (article 10 EC) if a member state were to define the term 'worker' so narrowly under its national law that the Framework Agreement on part-time work were deprived of any validity in practice and achievement of its purpose, as stipulated in Clause 1, were greatly obstructed. However, there is no sign of that here." Equal Treatment Directive (Council Directive 76/207/EEC - Directive 76/207/EEC - Directive 97/81/EC 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â S W Morrison v Wing Commander A Osborne, Ministry of Defence UKEAT/0442/04 12 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Birmingham City Council v Desmond Jaddoo UKEAT/0448/04 13 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other losses. [ EATn ] Â Birmingham City Council v Desmond Jaddoo UKEAT/0448/04 13 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Other losses Â J Akhavan-Moosavi v Association of London Government UKEAT/0501/04 14 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Mrs Justice Cox Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Langley v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1343; Times, 11 November 2004 15 Oct 2004 CA Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger Child Support, Discrimination It was discriminatory to treat differently homosexual and heterosexual couples when considering liability for child support payments. Sedley LJ: "The broad effect of the material provisions is to allocate the financial responsibility of separated parents for the maintenance of their children by pooling the absent parent's income and outgoings with those of his or her new partner if, but only if, that partner is of the opposite sex. For same-sex couples this means that the one who is an absent parent is assessed as if living alone, with generally disadvantageous consequences." and "Putting it schematically, the child support scheme sets out to respect family life by making allowance for the joint expenses of an absent parent's new household. It is this, without regard to discrimination, which brings the measure within the ambit of article 8. If then the scheme discriminates between one family unit and another on the ground of its members' sexuality, article 14 too becomes engaged. Here, by treating their finances as wholly separate when they are not, and by consequently assessing M's child support payment at a higher sum that if theirs was a heterosexual partnership, the scheme manifests a different level of respect for their family life." Neuberger LJ: "the reduction in liability effected by regulation 11 is accorded for the purpose of ensuring that that absent parent's new family is not so deprived of money that it is significantly detrimentally affected by the liability of the absent parent to pay child support. To my mind, it follows from this that M has made good her case that the relevant provision, of which she does not have the benefit because she is in a same sex, rather than a heterosexual, relationship, was enacted out of respect for family life, the family life in question being that of the absent parent and his/her new partner." 1 Citers Â Cadman v Health and Safety Executive [2004] EWCA Civ 1317 15 Oct 2004 CA Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Maurice Kay And Sir Martin Nourse Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M [2004] EWCA Civ 1343; [2005] 2 WLR 740; [2006] QB 380 15 Oct 2004 CA Kennedy, Sedley, Neuberger LJJ Child Support, Discrimination, Benefits M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the Regulations did not that her relationship as constituting a family. The Secretary of State appealed against the finding that the regulations were discriminatory. The second claimant had challenged a similar result in her claim for Housing Benefits. Held: The court upheld the Commissioner's decision. Lord Justice Sedley considered that the applicant's previous family life (i.e. the relationship between herself, her former husband and her children) was not within the ambit of Article 8. As for her relationship with her partner, he read the ECHR decision in Estevez to establish that the question whether same-sex relationships fall within Article 8 is a matter of domestic law. Several domestic precedents treated same-sex couples as no different from heterosexual couples in certain contexts, and the applicant's relationship constituted family life for the purposes of the case. Any discrimination against the applicant on the grounds of her sexual orientation called for compelling and proportionate justification. The child support scheme impinged in some significant degree on the family life of the applicant and her partner, bringing their situation within the ambit of Article 8. As the scheme discriminated against the applicant on grounds of her sexual orientation, Article 14 was also engaged. He rejected the argument that the scheme came within the ambit of the applicant's private life, since the scheme did not set out to recognise the applicant's sexual orientation. Regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, he considered it unnecessary to decide if it too was engaged, although he doubted that it was. He found that the Government had not provided any acceptable justification for the discrimination against the applicant. He rejected the arguments advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State about the difficulty of correcting a problem that was but one instance of a distinction applied throughout the wider social security system, observing that there was no doctrine of justification by the logistics of reform. As for a remedy, he considered that the appropriate course was to disapply (in effect delete) the definition in the regulations of an unmarried couple so as to eliminate the requirement of heterosexuality. Child Support Act 1991 - Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2) - Housing Benefit (General) Regulations 1987 - European Convention on Human Rights 8 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Wheeler v Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd [2004] UKEAT 0459_04_1511; UKEAT/0459/04 18 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â P M Pantry v The Home Office [2004] UKEAT 0083_04_1810; UKEAT/0083/04 18 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment [ Bailii ] Â Glasgow City Council v C Bvunzai EATS/0004/04; [2004] UKEAT 0004_04_1810; EATS/0015/04 18 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination, Employment, Scotland EAT Race Discrimination - Direct 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â P M Pantry v the Home Office UKEAT/0083/04 18 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Less favourable treatment. [ EATn ] Â Elizabeth Murchie Simpson v West Lothian Council EATS/0049/04 19 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability Â Jamison v Creative Composites Ltd [2004] NIFET 432_01 19 Oct 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Elizabeth Murchie Simpson v West Lothian Council EATS/0049/04 19 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Hubbard v Derry City Council [2004] NIFET 305_00 20 Oct 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Glasgow City Council v Kuldip Dhesi EATS/0027/04 21 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Clarke v London Borough of Harrow and others [2004] UKEAT 0745_02_2110; UKEAT/0746/02; UKEAT/0745/02 21 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge McMullen QC Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act - Article 141 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Glasgow City Council v Kuldip Dhesi EATS/0027/04; [2004] UKEAT 0027_04_2110 21 Oct 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â Grew v Gilpin (T/A Gilfresh Produce) [2004] NIFET 37_03 22 Oct 2004 FENI Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Connolly v the Globe Bar and Another [2004] NIFET 205_03 25 Oct 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â S H Lane v London Metropolitan University UKEAT/0846/03 28 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge D Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â S H Lane v London Metropolitan University [2004] UKEAT 0846_03_2810; UKEAT/0846/03 28 Oct 2004 EAT His Honour Judge D Serota QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Indirect [ Bailii ] Â B Esan v Medicines Control Agency UKEAT/0246/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â B Esan v Medicines Control Agency UKEAT/0246/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â Weir v Police Service of Northern Ireland [2004] NIFET 1_03 2 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Benchmark Dental Laboratories Group Ltd v M J Perfitt [2004] UKEAT 0304_04_0211; UKEAT/0304/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation [ Bailii ] Â L A Carney v 1) Addur Rouf 2) Naroul Islam UKEAT/0353/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Sexual harassment. [ EATn ] Â L A Carney v Addur Rouf Naroul Islam UKEAT/0353/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Prophet Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Sexual harassment Â Benchmark Dental Laboratories Group Ltd v M J Perfitt UKEAT/0304/04 2 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Compensation. [ EATn ] Â Banner Business Supplies Ltd v K Greaves UKEAT/0420/04 4 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bean Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Lorenzo v Fg Wilson (Engineering) Ltd [2005] NIFET 11 4 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Smyth v Mdf Engineering Ltd [2004] NIFET 282_02 4 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Lorenzo v Fg Wilson (Engineering) Ltd [2004] NIFET 366_02 4 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Banner Business Supplies Ltd v K Greaves UKEAT/0420/04 4 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Bean Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect Â Curley v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Another [2004] NIFET 56_98 5 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Â Roads v Central Trains Ltd; CA 5-Nov-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1541 Â UK Insulation Ltd v L Cook UKEAT/0605/04 8 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability Â UK Insulation Ltd v L Cook UKEAT/0605/04 8 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Richardson Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Vicarious liability. [ EATn ] Â Â London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju; CA 11-Nov-2004 - [2004] EWCA Civ 1493; Times, 26 November 2004; [2005] ICR 481; [2005] IRLR 35; [2005] 1 All ER 75 Â D Bancroft v Mitie Property Services (Southern) Ltd UKEAT/0494/04; [2004] UKEAT 0494_04_1211 12 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments [ Bailii ] Â D Bancroft v Mitie Property Services (Southern) Ltd UKEAT/0494/04 12 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Reasonable adjustments. [ EATn ] Â Roland Robinson and Fentons v Rosemary Landless UKEAT/0529/04 15 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Indirect. [ EATn ] Â Angelique Watt v Transco Plc EATS/0116/03; [2004] UKEAT 0116_03_1511 15 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Marital status [ Bailii ] Â Ms Angelique Watt v Transco Plc EATS/0116/03 15 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Marital status. [ EATn ] Â Mohammed Javad v the Scottish Ministers EATS/0041/04 16 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Mohammed Javad v the Scottish Ministers EATS/0041/04; [2004] UKEAT 0041_04_1611 16 Nov 2004 EAT The Honourable Lord Johnston Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ Bailii ] Â London Metropolitan University (Previously University of North London) v C Henry UKEAT/0344/04 19 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation Â London Metropolitan University (Previously University of North London) v C Henry UKEAT/0344/04 19 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Victimisation. [ EATn ] Â Armstrong and others v The Newcastle Upon Tyne NHS Hospital Trust [2004] UKEAT 0158_04_2211; UKEAT/0158/04; UKEAT/0159/04 22 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Ansell Employment, Discrimination EAT Equal Pay Act Equal pay. No common terms of employment between different hospitals in the same Trust. No single source responsible for purposes of Article 141. Equality clause would survive a TUPE transfer. Equal Pay Act 1970 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â Lewis v Scullion and Another [2004] NIFET 319_03 26 Nov 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Hillman v BBC Resources Ltd [2004] EWCA Civ 1760 29 Nov 2004 CA Discrimination 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â Talbot v WAGN Railways West Anglia and Great Northern Railways UKEAT/0770/04; [2004] UKEAT 0770_04_3011 30 Nov 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Serota QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination ET decision on section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act reversed because of decision of House of Lords in Archibald v Fife Council 2004] IRLR 651. ET had followed decision in Court of Session that House of Lords reversed. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Smith v Churchills Stairlift Plc [2004] UKEAT 0674_04_0212; UKEAT/0674/04 2 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge McMullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Disability Discrimination - Justification. [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â Atkinson and others v Icts (Uk) Ltd [2004] NIFET 337_02 3 Dec 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Dattani v The Chief Constable of West Mercia Police UKEAT/0385/04; [2005] UKEAT 0385_04_0702 6 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination - Burden of proof (1) ET erred when, in considering whether C had made out a prima facie case of race discrimination, it paid attention at that stage to evidence and explanations of the . . R. Sinclair Roche & Temperley [2004] IRLR 763 EAT applied. (2) Inferences may be drawn under RRA 1976 Section 65 from material given by a respondent in response to a statutory questionnaire, or otherwise, including a Response and additional information. 1 Cites [ Bailii ] - [ EAT ] Â A Ceesay v Securicor Security Ltd UKEAT/0105/04 8 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid QC Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct Â Vaseghi v Brunel University UKEAT/0757/04/DA; [2004] UKEAT 0757_04_0812 8 Dec 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination / Trade Union Rights>br />The Employment Tribunal incorrectly excluded unconscious discrimination from its consideration, contrary to Nagarajan, and on the s146 claim wrongly concluded that there was no detriment and gave inadequate reasons for its conclusion that there was no Trade Union motivation. Other outstanding unadjudicated grounds of appeal (not before full hearing on this occasion) prevented remission. Referral under Burns v Consignia to the same Tribunal to give answers on unconscious discrimination and reasoning for s146 conclusion on motivation (without further evidence, with further submissions and with opportunity for the Employment Tribunal to review if so advised of its own initiative). EAT Trade Union Rights - Action short of dismissal. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â A Ceesay v Securicor Security Ltd UKEAT/0105/04 8 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Reid Qc Discrimination EAT Race Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â Â Regina v Immigration Officer at Prague Airport and another, ex parte European Roma Rights Centre and others; HL 9-Dec-2004 - [2005] 2 AC 1; [2004] UKHL 55; Times, 10 December 2004; [2005] 2 WLR 1; [2005] 1 All ER 527; [2005] Imm AR 100; 18 BHRC 1; [2005] IRLR 115; [2005] UKHRR 530; [2005] INLR 182; [2005] HRLR 4 Â G Webster v Brunel University UKEAT/0730/04; [2004] UKEAT 0730_04_1412 14 Dec 2004 EAT The Honourable Mr Justice Burton Discrimination, Employment EAT Race Discrimination Novel point decided that the Employment Tribunal erred in concluding that, in a case where there was an issue as to whether the act complained of was by the Respondent (i.e. by someone for whom the Respondent was responsible) the Applicant failed to show that such was the case (so the burden of proof never passed). The Employment Tribunal should have treated such an issue as part of the prima facie case that the Applicant must present so as to transfer the burden of proof to the Respondent to prove that there was no unfavourable treatment by the Respondent significantly influenced by race. 1 Citers [ Bailii ] - [ EATn ] Â R G Plumb v Bichanger Church of England Primary School, Essex County Council UKEAT/0133/04 14 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct [ EATn ] Â R G Plumb v Bichanger Church of England Primary School Essex County Council UKEAT/0133/04 14 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Direct Â Rice v Social Security Agency Hq [2004] NIFET 890_04 16 Dec 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Â A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, and X v Secretary of State for the Home Department; HL 16-Dec-2004 - [2004] UKHL 56; Times, 17 December 2004; [2005] 2 WLR 87; [2005] 2 AC 68 Â Claydon House Ltd v J Hamilton-Bradbury [2004] UKEAT 0315_04_1612; UKEAT/0315/04/MAA 16 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability [ Bailii ] Â Claydon House Ltd v J Hamilton-Bradbury UKEAT/0315/04/MAA 16 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge Mcmullen Qc Discrimination EAT Disability Discrimination - Disability. [ EATn ] Â Gibson v Short Brothers Plc [2004] NIFET 106_01_01 20 Dec 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Mcparland v Belfast City Council [2004] NIFET 104_01 20 Dec 2004 FENI Northern Ireland, Discrimination [ Bailii ] Â Hockenjos v Secretary of State for Social Security (No 2) [2004] EWCA Civ 1749; Times, 04 January 2005; [2005] IRLR 471; [2005] 1 FCR 286; [2005] Eu LR 385; [2005] 1 FLR 1009; [2005] Fam Law 464 21 Dec 2004 CA Ward LJ, Arden LJ, Scott Baker LJ Benefits, Discrimination The claimant shared child care with his former partner, but claimed that the system which gave the job-seeker's child care supplement to one party only was discriminatory. Held: In such cases the supplement usually went to the mother, and this had a diverse impact on men. It was for the Secretary of State to justify the discrimination. He had not done so. The rule was indirectly discriminatory against fathers; and the link with child benefit could not be justified. Treating only one parent as responsible in a shared care situation could not be justified. Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 - Equal Treatment dDirective 79/7/EEC A4 - Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 141 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Robert Ross v Ryanair Limited, Stansted Airport Limited [2004] EWCA Civ 1751 21 Dec 2004 CA Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Brooke Lord Justice Parker Discrimination Disability Discrimination Act 1995 Â Department for Work and Pensions v Webley [2004] EWCA Civ 1745; Times, 17 January 2005 21 Dec 2004 CA Discrimination The claimant had been employed on a fixed term contract. It was not renewed, and she claimed less favourable treatment under the regulations. She had been employed on a series of fixed term contracts, and there had been no criticism of her work. The Department appealed a finding against them on the preliminary issue as to whether his could constitute less favourable treatment Held: The non-renewal of a fixed term contract could not of itself constitute less favourable treatment under the regulations. Such contracts were recognised by the European legislation, and their simple non-renewal could not of itself be such treatment. Fixed-Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002 1 Cites 1 Citers [ Bailii ] Â Ross v Ryanair Ltd and Another [2004] EWCA Civ 1751; Times, 11 January 2005; [2005] 1 WLR 1349 21 Dec 2004 CA Lord Justice Brooke Vice-President Of The Court Of Appeal (Civil Division) Lord Justice Jonathan Parker And Lord Justice Keene Discrimination, Transport The claimant said that the airline and airport had failed to provide proper access arrangements for him as a disabled person. No wheelchair had been provided to transfer him through the airport to the airplane. Held: It was the duty of both defendants to provide such facilities. It was no defence that better facilities were provided for more seriously disabled travellers, and the claimants financial ability to provide his own services was equally irrelevant. Both defendants were 100% liable, and the damages were to be paid equally. Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1 Cites [ Bailii ] Â O Donovan v the Housing Corporation UK EAT /0444/04 /DA 22 Dec 2004 EAT His Honour Judge J R Reid QC Discrimination EAT Sex Discrimination - Victimisation Â
		Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.

swarb.co.uk - law index

Discrimination - From: 2004 To: 2004