Site icon swarb.co.uk

Nagarajan v London Regional Transport; Swiggs and London Regional Transport v Nagarajan: CA 7 Nov 1997

On a true construction of section 2(1), a person alleged to have been victimised had to establish that the alleged discriminator, in treating him less favourably than another, had a motive which was consciously connected with the race relations legislation.

Citations:

[1997] EWCA Civ 2671, [1998] IRLR 73

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 2(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reversed on sSwiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .

Cited by:

ReversedSwiggs and others v Nagarajan HL 15-Jul-1999
Bias may not be intentional
The applicant claimed that he had been denied appointment to a job with London Regional Transport because he had brought a number of previous race discrimination claims against it or associated companies. An industrial tribunal had upheld his claim . .
CitedClark v TDG Limited (Trading As Novacold) CA 25-Mar-1999
The applicant had soft tissue injuries around the spine as a consequence of a back injury at work. He was absent from work for a long time as a result of his injuries, and he was eventually dismissed when his medical advisers could provide no clear . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 10 November 2022; Ref: scu.143070

Exit mobile version