Sougrin v Haringey Health Authority: CA 1992

The claimant alleged race discrimination arising out of a disputed grading and because it affected her pay she said it was a continuing act.
Held: The court drew the distinction between a ‘one-off’ act of alleged racial discrimination and its continuing consequences for the appellant on the one hand, and the policy of such discrimination, on the other, which would be a continuing act.
Sir John Donaldson MR said: ‘In applying section 68(1) the first step must be to identify ‘the act complained of’. Industrial tribunals are ‘shop floor’ courts whose procedures and approaches must be attuned to the needs of litigants in person. Accordingly a tribunal should not take a narrow or legalistic view of the terms in which the complaint is couched.’


Sir John Donaldson MR, Balcombe LJ


[1992] ICR 650


Race Relations Act 1976


England and Wales


Appeal FromSougrin v Haringey Health Authority EAT 31-Jul-1991
The applicant alleged discrimination arising out of a disputed grading. She claimed the grading she had received in 1988 amounted to direct discrimination on grounds of race, and that because this affected her pay there was a ‘continuing act’ of . .

Cited by:

CitedCast v Croydon College CA 19-Mar-1998
Complaint was made within time limit when the decision complained of was a reconsideration of an earlier decision, not just a reference back to it.
Held: In a sex discrimination case, where there has been a constructive dismissal, time runs . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.282644