Molaudi v Ministry of Defence: EAT 15 Apr 2011


The Claimant sought to bring a claim for racial discrimination against the defendant relating to events which occurred while the Claimant was a serving soldier. He had previously made a complaint about the same matters to the military authorities, which was not brought in time and which was rejected.
The Employment Tribunal held that (a) pursuant to section 75(9) of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended, a ‘service complaint’ had to be brought to the military authorities before a claim could be brought in the Employment Tribunal; and (b) a complaint to the military authorities which was brought out of time and was rejected by the military authorities was not a valid ‘service complaint’ and so the pre-condition for bringing a claim in front of the Employment Tribunal was not satisfied. There were adequate judicial procedures in this country ‘available to all persons who consider themselves wronged by failure to apply the principle of equal treatment to them’ as specified in article 7 of the Directive.
The Claimant appealed on (b).
Held: Dismissing the appeal
(1) The term ‘service complaint’ meant a complaint which could be considered substantively and that meant a complaint rejected by the military authorities brought out of time did not fall within that definition; and
(2) The Racial Discrimination Directive 2000/43/EC did not require a different meaning to be given to the words ‘service complaint’ so that it covered a complaint to the military authorities which was brought out of time.

Silber J
[2011] UKEAT 0463 – 10 – 1504, [2011] ICR D19
Race Relations Act 1976 75(9), Equality Act 2010, Race Relations (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) Armed Forces Regulations 1997, Armed Forces Act 2006 334, The Armed Forces Redress of Individual Grievance (Procedures and Time Limits) Regulations 2007 11(a), Racial Discrimination Directive 2000/43/EC 7
England and Wales
CitedPinner v Everett HL 1969
The House was asked whether or not a person was ‘driving or attempting to drive’ a motor vehicle when he had been stopped by the police in connection with the illumination of his rear number plate, and the driver got out of the car and started to . .
CitedJ L Melbourne v Ministry of Defence EAT 26-Nov-2001
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
CitedBarnes v Jarvis 1953
Lord Goddard CJ said: ‘A certain amount of common sense must be applied in construing statutes. The object of the Act has to be considered.’ . .
CitedRadakovits v Abbey National Plc CA 17-Nov-2009
The Tribunal had considered the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue. It heard evidence, and considered that there was no jurisdiction. This was despite the fact that, at an earlier stage, the employer had said that it would not contest . .
CitedRiley v First Choice Homes Oldham Ltd EAT 30-Apr-2008
EAT Statutory Discipline and Grievance Procedures – Whether applicable – Whether infringed – Was the modified or standard grievance procedure applicable? The Employment Tribunal found the former, and held that . .
CitedMinistry of Defence v Wallis and Grocott CA 8-Mar-2011
Mrs Wallis was employed by the Ministry of Defence at the international school attached to SHAPE in Belgium. Mrs Grocott was employed by the Ministry in the British section of the Armed Forces North International School in the Netherlands. Both . .
CitedCrompton v The United Kingdom ECHR 27-Oct-2009
The applicant had joined the Territorial Army as a pay and accounts clerk but was made redundant. He claimed redress in respect of his redundancy from his Commanding Officer. There then followed a prolonged series of proceedings which took eleven . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMolaudi v Ministry of Defence CA 21-Mar-2012
Affirmed . .
CitedWilliams v The Ministry of Defence EAT 7-Sep-2012
EAT Jurisdictional Points : Excluded Employments – The Claimant was in the RAF. Before presenting a discrimination claim to the Employment Tribunal she was required to go through the service complaints procedure. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Armed Forces

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.432795