Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal, Ex parte Kassam: CA 1980

Discrimination was alleged against the immigration authorities.
Held: In dealing with people coming in under the immigration rules, the immigration authorities were not providing ‘services’ within the meaning of the Act. The words the ‘circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of this Act’ are the circumstances in which discrimination is prohibited by the Act.


Stephenson LJ


[1980] 1 WLR 1037, [1980] 2 All ER 330, [1979] Imm AR 132


Sex Discrimination Act 1975


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedShamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary HL 27-Feb-2003
The applicant was a chief inspector of police. She had been prevented from carrying out appraisals of other senior staff, and complained of sex discrimination.
Held: The claimant’s appeal failed. The tribunal had taken a two stage approach. It . .
CitedSavjani v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1981
The question arose as whether the Inland Revenue were concerned with the provision of services in their activities relating to the adminsitration of the taxation system, so as to bring them within section 20 of the 1976 Act.
Held: They were . .
CitedRegina v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay, Ex parte Amin HL 1983
The House was asked whether the grant of special vouchers under the special voucher scheme introduced came within section 29 of the 1975 Act. Acts performed pursuant to a government function did not come within the meaning of service. Discrimination . .
CitedSaggar v Ministry of Defence EAT 25-May-2004
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, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Immigration, Discrimination

Updated: 23 March 2022; Ref: scu.207074