Abbey Life Assurance Company Limited v Tansell: CA 6 Apr 2000

Appeal about the scope of protection conferred by the 1995 Act on ‘contract workers’, workers who do work for the alleged discriminator, but not employed by him. They are employed by someone else and their services are contracted out.
The case turns on the interpretation of section 12 of the 1995 Act which makes it unlawful to discriminate against disabled contract workers. The point arises as a preliminary issue in an application to the Employment Tribunal in the field of employment for a reason relating to his disability.

Judges:

Stuart-Smith, Ward, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[2000] IRLR 387, [2000] EWCA Civ 107, [2000] ICR 789

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.115986

Smith v Safeway Plc: EAT 9 Dec 1994

A male employee had been unlawfully discriminated against when he had been dismissed for having long hair, where the same requirements would not have been made of female employees.

Citations:

Ind Summary 16-Jan-1995, Times 16-Dec-1994, [1994] UKEAT 185 – 93 – 0912

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.89342

Regina v Dyfed County Council Ex Parte S (Minors): CA 25 Jul 1994

No objection was to be taken for English children sent to mainly Welsh speaking school. They were not entitled to transport to a school with a greater number of English speakers.

Citations:

Independent 12-Aug-1994, Times 25-Jul-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRegina v Dyfed County Council Ex Parte S (Minors) QBD 21-Dec-1993
No Judicial Review was available for English speaking children who had allocated to a Welsh speaking school. . .

Cited by:

CitedJones, Regina (on the Application of) v Ceredigion County Council Admn 22-Jun-2004
The parents lawfully chose to send their child to a Welsh language school. The authority refused to provide free transport on the basis that a nearer school was available even though it was not a Welsh language school.
Held: Provided the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, Discrimination

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.86597

Cary v Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis Equality and Human Rights Commission: CA 17 Jul 2014

In a claim for sex discrimination by the police the court was asked whether the judge in the Central London County Court was right to overrule Mr Cary’s objection to a particular individual acting as an assessor on the ground that, for this type of case, an assessor is required to have specific experience and expertise in relation to issues of discrimination on the grounds of same sex sexual orientation.

Citations:

[2014] EWCA Civ 987, [2014] WLR(D) 320, [2014] CP Rep 42, [2015] ICR 71, [2014] Eq LR 707

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Litigation Practice

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.534415

Walker v Innospec Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jul 2017

The claimant appealed against refusal of his employer’s pension scheme trustees to include as a recipient of any death benefit his male civil partner.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The salary paid to Mr Walker throughout his working life was precisely the same as that which would have been paid to a heterosexual man. There was no reason for the company to anticipate that it would not become liable to pay a survivor’s pension to his lawful spouse. The date when that pension will come due, provided Mr Walker and his partner remain married and his partner does not predecease Mr Walker, is the time at which denial of a pension would amount to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation.
‘it is vital to keep the two concepts distinct. ‘No retroactivity’ and ‘future effects’ are principles of law which apply to all EU legislation, unless a contrary intention can be found. The Barber exception is an example of a technique used by the CJEU to limit the generally retroactive application of its judgments, which it will only exercise in the most exceptional circumstances and where the impact would be truly ‘catastrophic’. The court limits the temporal application of its judgments in cases where reliance has been placed on a different understanding of the law and legitimate expectations may be upset, but only in the most special circumstances. Therefore, how the court exceptionally applies a temporal limitation to one of its rulings has no inevitable bearing on the temporal application of legislation as a matter of principle.’
‘Mr Walker’s husband, provided he does not predecease him, and that they remain married at the time of Mr Walker’s death, is entitled under the Framework Directive to a spouse’s pension calculated on the basis of all the years of Mr Walker’s service with Innospec. On that account, paragraph 18 of Schedule 9 is incompatible with the Framework Directive. In particular, paragraph 18(1)(b) which authorises a restriction of payment of benefits based on periods of service before 5 December 2005 cannot be reconciled with what I consider to be the plain effect of the Directive.’

Judges:

Baroness Hale of Richmond DPSC, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes JJSC

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 47, [2017] IRLR 928, [2017] ICR 1077, [2017] WLR(D) 477, UKSC 2016/0090

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170308am Video, SC 20170308pm Video, SC 20170317am Video, SC 20170317pm Video

Statutes:

Civil Partnership Act 2004, Council Directive 2000/78/EC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedBull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
CitedDefrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
CitedAndersson and Wakeras-Andersson v Svenska Staten ECJ 15-Jun-1999
(External relations) Article 234 EC (ex-Article 177) – EEA Agreement – Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice – Accession to the European Union – Directive 80/987/EEC – Liability of a State
Advocate General Jacobs said: ‘Retroactive effect . .
CitedBilka-Kaufhaus v Webers Von Hartz ECJ 13-May-1986
ECJ An occupational pension scheme which, although established in accordance with statutory provisions, is based on an agreement between the employer and employee representatives constitutes an integral part of . .
CitedBarber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group ECJ 17-May-1990
Europa The benefits paid by an employer to a worker on the latter’s redundancy constitute a form of pay to which the worker is entitled in respect of his employment, which is paid to him upon termination of the . .
CitedVroege v Nciv Instituut Voor Volkshuisvesting Bv and Stichting Pensioenfonds Nciv ECJ 28-Sep-1994
1. Social policy – Male and female workers – Equal pay – Pay – Concept – Right to join a private occupational pension scheme – Included – Exclusion of married women from membership – Not permissible – Exclusion of part-time workers – Part-time staff . .
Appeal fromO’Brien v Ministry of Justice and Others CA 6-Oct-2015
The claimants each sought additional pensions, saying that discrimination laws which had come into effect (for part time workers and for sexual orientation) should be applied retrospectively.
Held: The decision was upheld. The ‘no . .
CitedInnospec Ltd and Others v Walker EAT 18-Feb-2014
EAT Sex Discrimination : Sexual Orientation discrimination / transexualism : The recipient of an occupational pension since 2003, under the terms of a pension scheme which provided survivor’s benefits to spouses . .
CitedChester, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Justice SC 16-Oct-2013
The two applicants were serving life sentences for murder. Each sought damages for the unlawful withdrawal of their rights to vote in elections, and the failure of the British parliament to take steps to comply with the judgment.
Held: The . .
CitedLand Nordrhein-Westfalen v Pokrzeptowicz-Meyer ECJ 29-Jan-2002
External relations – Europe Agreement between the Communities and Poland – Interpretation of the first indent of Article 37(1) – Prohibition of discrimination based on nationality as regards conditions of employment or dismissal for Polish workers . .
CitedMaruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Buhnen ECJ 6-Sep-2007
ECJ Pension paid by a compulsory occupational pension – Refusal survival due to the absence of marriage to same-sex partners Directive 2000/78 / EC Scope Exclusion of social security benefits Concept of pay – . .
CitedGhaidan v Godin-Mendoza HL 21-Jun-2004
Same Sex Partner Entitled to tenancy Succession
The protected tenant had died. His same-sex partner sought a statutory inheritance of the tenancy.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Fitzpatrick case referred to the position before the 1998 Act: ‘Discriminatory law undermines the rule of law . .
CitedParris v Trinity College Dublin and Others ECJ 24-Nov-2016
No retrospection for pensions of civil partnership
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Equal treatment in employment and occupation – Directive 2000/78/EC – Article 2 – Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and age – . .

Cited by:

CitedMiller and Others v Ministry of Justice SC 16-Dec-2019
‘The issue in this appeal is when time starts to run for a claim by a part-time judge to a pension under the Part-time Workers’ Directive (Directive 97/81) (‘PTWD’), as applied by the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Updated: 20 May 2022; Ref: scu.589262

Lodwick v London Borough of Southwark: EAT 7 Mar 2003

The applicant was employed by the respondent and sought leave to work for the CAB for a year, requesting a sabbatical. Leave was refused. He applied to the employment tribunal, but objected that the chairman had, in a previous case, indicated his strong dislike of the applicant. The chairman refused to recuse himself.
Held: The proposed appeal was not on a question of law, and the EAT did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. ‘The claim based on the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 and the Directive 97/81 EC seems to me to have been entirely misconceived. Those provisions were designed to protect part-time workers from being discriminated against when compared with full-time workers. They do not give a right to an employee who wants to go and work for somebody else to insist that his original employer continues to employ him part-time. ‘

Citations:

[2003] EAT 1285 – 02 – 0703, [2003] UKEAT 1285 – 02 – 0703

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Act 1996 21(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed toLodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLodwick v London Borough of Southwark CA 18-Mar-2004
The claimant alleged bias on the part of the employment appeal tribunal chairman hearing his appeal. The chairman refused to stand down, saying that he was only one of three tribunal members with an equal vote. The chairman had four year’s . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.189318

Rovenska v General Medical Council: EAT 22 Sep 1994

The complainant said that the respondent’s rules imposing language skills testing on doctors with recognised foreign qualifications were discriminatory.
Held: Discriminatory rules are a continuing act and the complaint was not barred by time limit. The complaint was not time-barred because it was: ‘about the maintenance and operation of a scheme for exemption which extends over a period, that period being the currency of the scheme or rules.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

Independent 22-Sep-1994, [1994] UKEAT 163 – 93 – 1103

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal fromRovenska v General Medical Council CA 4-Dec-1996
A Czechoslovakian doctor complained against the General Medical Council under Section 12(1)(a) of the 1976 Act 1976 in respect of the most recent of a series of refusals, under its rules for the grant of limited registration as a medical . .
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.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.88876

O’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More Roman Catholic Voluntary Aided Upper School: EAT 7 Jun 1996

The dismissal by a Roman Catholic school of a teacher who was pregnant by a priest, was on the grounds of pregnancy, and for an inadmissible reason. The pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of the Appellant by her employer.

Judges:

Mummery P

Citations:

Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Times 07-Jun-1996, [1996] IRLR 372, [1996] UKEAT 1180 – 94 – 304, [1997] ICR 33

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Citing:

See AlsoO’Neill v Governors of St Thomas More RC School EAT 12-Oct-1995
The claimant had lodged an appeal against a rejection of her claim of sex discrimination, and against the amount of damages awarded on the success of her claim of unfair dismissal. After rejection of her request for a review, her counsel had lodged . .

Cited by:

AppliedMartin v Goldsobel EAT 6-Sep-2001
The employee had been dismissed. She alleged that it was because of her pregnancy, and was automatically unfair. The employers, a firm of solicitors, alleged that it related to her standards of work.
Held: To establish sex discrimination a . .
CitedMurphy v Sheffield Hallam University EAT 11-Jan-2000
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he . .
CitedA C Redfearn v Serco Ltd T/A West Yorkshire Transport Service EAT 27-Jul-2005
The claimant said that he had been indirectly discriminated against on racial grounds. He was dismissed after being elected as a local councillor for the BNP. The employer considered that for Health and Safety reasons, his dismissal was necessary . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.84460

Morse v Wiltshire County Council: EAT 1 May 1998

A tribunal considering a claim of disability discrimination should best consider the various statutory elements in the order given in the Act, so as to avoid confusion in unraveling what is a complex statutory structure. The wide language of section 6(2) and 6(3) is capable of applying to a ‘dismissal situation’. Although section 6 makes no express mention of dismissal, termination of service or redundancy, the Code of Practice assumes that section applies to a dismissal in the circumstances of the applicant in that case. ‘Arrangements on which employment . . is offered or afforded’ include alternatives to dismissal, such as are mentioned in section 6(3)-allocation of the disabled person’s duties to another person, assigning him to a different place of work or transferring him to fill an existing vacancy.

Judges:

Bell J

Citations:

Times 11-May-1998, [1998] UKEAT 1279 – 97 – 0105, [1998] ICR 1023

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 5 6

Cited by:

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 . .
CitedRothwell v Pelikan Hardcopy Scotland Ltd EAT 23-Sep-2005
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Reasonable adjustments
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
Procedural fairness
The claimant, who suffered from Parkinson’s Disease, claimed that he had been unfairly dismissed and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.83862

Handels Og Kontorfunktionaerernes Forbund I Danmark (Acting On Behalf of Pedersen) v Faellesforeningen for Danmarks Brugsforeninger (Acting On Behalf of Kvickly Skive): ECJ 19 Nov 1998

It was discriminatory to refuse payment of maternity benefits where a worker suffered a pathological illness connected to a pregnancy with an allowance of benefits where someone ordinarily sick would receive full pay.

Citations:

Times 01-Dec-1998, C-66/96, [1998] EUECJ C-66/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 75/117/EEC on Equal Pay for Men and Women

Discrimination, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81215

Halfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd: HL 19 Dec 2000

A woman who had taken maternity leave was deemed to have returned to work following the completion of that leave when, on the appropriate date she provided medical certificates in accordance with the contract of employment. The applicant had given notice of her intention to return after maternity leave, but obtained an extension of four weeks. She requested a further extension, but this was refused by her employers. She did not attend.
Held: The right to return could not be dependent on the simple ability to return on the day notified. Nor could the simple service of a notice under the section create a return to work. In this case, however, the employee had demonstrated her intention to comply with the requirements of the contract of employment, and that was sufficient to constitute a return to work under the Act even though she did not physically attend on the notified day.

Judges:

Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Mackay of Clashfern Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson Lord Clyde

Citations:

Times 19-Dec-2000, [2000] UKHL 64

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHalfpenny v IGE Medical Systems Ltd CA 18-Dec-1998
Where an employee had taken extended maternity leave but was then unable to return for post-natal depression, but she was dismissed, the resumption of her contract on issuing her notice of intention to return revived her sickness rights anew.
CitedKwik Save Stores Limited v Greaves; Crees v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Limited CA 20-Jan-1998
Women had taken extended maternity leave, but having followed the procedures, had been unable for illness to return to work on the day they had notified. The employer then asserted that the claimants had resigned. The EAT had confirm that they had . .
CitedKelly v Liverpool Maritime Terminals Limited CA 1988
An employee had no valid claim for unfair dismissal if illness prevented her from returning to work before the end of the twenty-nine week period after her confinement, allowing for only one statutory extension of 4 weeks. The applicant’s maternity . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81144

Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 21 Oct 1998

An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of guidance resolves this ambiguity in favour of the latter alternative. The employment tribunal would: ‘wish to examine how the applicants abilities had actually been affected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicants ability to carry out normal day to day activities [are] clearly the more than trivial.’
The tribunal should consider four conditions: ‘(1) The impairment condition. Does the applicant have an impairment which is either mental or physical?
(2) The adverse effect condition. Does the impairment affect the applicant’s ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities in one of the respects set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 1 to the Act, and does it have an adverse effect?
(3) The substantial condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) substantial?
(4) The long-term condition. Is the adverse effect (upon the applicant’s ability) long-term?’ He continued: ‘Frequently, there will be a complete overlap between conditions (3) and (4) but it will be as well to bear all four of them in mind. Tribunals may find it helpful to address each of the questions but at the same time be aware of the risk that disaggregation should not take one’s eye off the whole picture.’

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Times 11-Nov-1998, [1998] UKEAT 57 – 98 – 2110, [1999] ICR 302, [1999] IRLR 4

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Citing:

See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .

Cited by:

See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 3-Feb-1999
Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not . .
CitedConoco Ltd v Kevan Booth EAT 30-Jan-2001
EAT The employer appealed against a finding of unfair dsmissal and unlawful disability discrimination. He claimant suffered post traumatic stress after a fire at the appellant’s premises, and the employer was . .
CitedJ v DLA Piper UK Llp EAT 15-Jun-2010
EAT DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION – Disability
Job offer to Claimant withdrawn allegedly as a result of her disclosing a history of depression – On a preliminary issue Tribunal holds that at the material time . .
CitedEast Sussex County Council v Hancock EAT 5-Nov-2003
EAT The Council appealed against a finding that the respondent, their employee, was disabled under the 1995 Act. He suffered from a long term mixed anxiety and depression disorder, but the Council disputed that . .
CitedKapadia v London Borough of Lambeth EAT 27-May-1999
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for disability discrimination which had been on the ground that his condition did not amount to a disability within section 1(1). He suffered from anxiety, stress, tension and depression.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80923

Deliege v Ligue Francophone De Judo et Disciplines Associees Asbl and Others: ECJ 11 Apr 2000

It was not an unlawful discriminatory provision to restrict those who might take part in professional sports activities in another member state to be first authorised or selected by their own national federation where such competition was not on a national representative team level. If it was derived from a proper need inherent in the organisation of such a competition it could be proper. A selection system might favour some athletes over others, but need not constitute a restriction on the provision of services: ‘a rule requiring professional or semi-professional athletes or persons aspiring to take part in a professional or semi-professional activity to have been authorised or selected by their federation in order to be able to participate in a high-level international sports competition, which does not involve national teams competing against each other, does not in itself, as long as it derives from a need inherent in the organisation of such a competition, constitute a restriction on the freedom to provide services prohibited by Article 49 (ex 59) of the Treaty.’

Citations:

Times 19-Apr-2000, C-51/96, C-191/97, [2000] ECR I-2549, [2000] EUECJ C-191/97, [2000] EUECJ C-51/96

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

ECTreaty Art 234 49

Cited by:

CitedMeca-Medina and Majcen v Commission ECFI 30-Sep-2004
ECJ Competition – Freedom to provide services – Anti-doping legislation adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) – Purely sporting legislation
The claimants were athletes who complained that . .
CitedAdidas-Salomon Ag v Drape and others ChD 7-Jun-2006
The claimants had sponsored tennis players to wear their logo. The respondents organised tennis tournaments whose intended rules would prevent the display of the claimant’s logos. The claimants said that the restriction interfered with their rights . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79891

Deutsche Telekom Ag v Vick and Another; Same v Schroder; Deutsche Post Ag v Sievers and Another: ECJ 28 Mar 2000

The social purposes of the Treaty in article 119 (141 EC) overrode the economic aims of the Treaty. Accordingly the article did not preclude a requirement upon a member state which imposed obligations to satisfy that social aim, even though it migt have economic consequences which risked an adverse effect upon that member states international competitiveness.

Judges:

R. Schintgen, P

Citations:

Times 28-Mar-2000, Case C-50/96, C-271/97, C-270/9, C-234/96, [2000] EUECJ C-271/97, [2000] EUECJ C-234/96

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 141

Cited by:

CitedUnison, Regina (on The Application of) v The Lord Chancellor and Another Admn 7-Feb-2014
The claimant challenged the Regulations and Orders charging for the laying of complaints at Employment Tribunals, saying they were mistaken and discriminatory.
Held: The challenge failed. The new Order was not in breach of European Union . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79944

D Lowery and Chelsea Village Management Ltd v Omar M Said Ali: EAT 24 Nov 2000

The applicant had been dismissed with another. He claimed race discrimination. The employer appealed, saying that the tribunal’s award had been described in such a way as not to allow them to identify the various elements in the findings.
Held: The Tribunal had failed properly to apply the test. They should, first have identified a protected characteristic, and then identified adverse treatment so as to raise the issue of racial discrimination. Then the reasons for the treatment in question should have been scrutinised, including any reasons put forward in evidence. Finally, it if was found that the reasons were insufficient, there were inferences to be drawn, and evidence sought, with regard to comparators. The decision on unfair dismissal stood, but the finding of race discrimination was remitted to be reheard before a different tribunal.

Judges:

His Honour Judge H Wilson

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Citing:

Appealed toLambert v Lowery and Another CA 2-Feb-2001
Renewed application for leave to appeal.
Held: No error of law had been shown. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromLambert v Lowery and Another CA 2-Feb-2001
Renewed application for leave to appeal.
Held: No error of law had been shown. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.79755

Burrett v West Birmingham Health Authority: EAT 6 Dec 1993

Female nurses had to wear a cap whereas male nurses did not, though male nurses had to wear a tunic with epaulettes. They claimed discrimination.
Held: A requirement for female to wear a nurse’s cap where no similar rule applied for men, was not discriminatory. The fact that one feature of the female nurses’ uniform (which was believed by the applicant to be demeaning to women) was not required for male nurses did not amount to less favourable treatment of the female nurses than the male nurses.

Judges:

Knox J

Citations:

Ind Summary 06-Dec-1993, [1994] IRLR 7

Citing:

AppliedSchmidt v Austick’s Bookshops EAT 1977
The bookshop company’s employment rules prohibited trousers for female workers, a dress code which was upheld by the Tribunal.
Held: There was no detriment. As there was no comparable restriction for men it was not possible to say that women . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBurrett v West Birmingham Health Authority CA 3-Mar-1994
Application for leave to appeal. . .
CitedHM Land Registry v Grant EAT 15-Apr-2010
hmlr_grantEAT10
EAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION DISCRIMINATION/TRANSEXUALISM
HARASSMENT – Conduct
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appellate Jurisdiction /Reasons /Burns-Barke
An Employment Tribunal accepted that 6 out of 12 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78754

Burton and Another v De Vere Hotels: EAT 3 Oct 1996

Two black waitresses, clearing tables in the banqueting hall of a hotel, were made the butt of racist and sexist jibes by a guest speaker entertaining the assembled all-male company at a private dinner party.
Held: The employer of the waitresses had racially discriminated against the waitresses. Had the assistant managers in charge for the evening been properly instructed, the two young women would not have suffered embarrassment. They could, and should, have been withdrawn from the room. An hotel is liable, as an employer to its employees who had been offended by racially charged or offensive material uttered by a guest speaker by a guests’ guest speaker. The employer could have taken steps to intervene, but did not do so.

Judges:

Smith J, R Chapman, Lord Gladwin

Citations:

Times 03-Oct-1996, [1997] ICR 1, [1996] IRLR 596, Independent 04-Nov-1996

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChief Constable of Bedfordshire Police v Liversidge EAT 21-Sep-2001
The Chief Constable appealed against a refusal to strike out a claim by the respondent that he had racially discriminated against her. Force members had used code words for racially abusive terms about her. The claim was that he was vicariously . .
OverruledMacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
DoubtedS S Hussain v HM Prison Service EAT 1-Mar-2002
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
CitedChief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville CA 3-Sep-2003
The claimant sought damages for sex discrimination by fellow police officers in an action against the Chief Constable. The Chief Constable said he was liable for the unlawful acts of fellow officers.
Held: Anything done by an employee was done . .
CitedConteh v Parking Partners Ltd EAT 17-Dec-2010
EAT HARASSMENT – Conduct
Where an employee worked in an environment in which her dignity was violated, or which became intimidatory, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive as a result of actions of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.78768

Brown v Rentokil Ltd: IHCS 10 Mar 1995

Mrs Brown was employed by Rentokil as a driver, transporting and changing ‘Sanitact’ units in shops. In her view, it was heavy work. She told Rentokil that she was pregnant. She had difficulties associated with the pregnancy. From 16 August 1990 onwards, she submitted a succession of four-week certificates mentioning various pregnancy-related disorders. She did not work again after mid-August 1990. Rentokil’s contracts stipulated that, if an employee was absent because of sickness for more than 26 weeks continuously, he or she would be dismissed. On 9 November 1990, Rentokil told her, and confirmed in writing, that half of the 26-week period had run and that her employment would end on 8 February 1991 if, following an independent medical examination, she had not returned to work by then.
She did not go back to work. The parties agree that there was never any question of her being able to return to work before the end of the 26-week period. By letter of 30 January 1991, which took effect on 8 February 1991, she was accordingly dismissed while pregnant. Her child was born on 22 March 1991.
Held: As a preliminary conclusion, it was not sex discrimination where a woman dismissed for absences from illness arising out of pregnancy, but not actual pregnancy. Since the Court of Justice had drawn a clear distinction between pregnancy and illness attributable to pregnancy, Mrs Brown, whose absence was due to illness and who had been dismissed on account of that illness, could not succeed.

Citations:

Times 10-Mar-1995

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 1(1), Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 33

Cited by:

Appeal from – ReversedBrown v Rentokil Ltd ECJ 30-Jun-1998
Dismissal for any illness associated with pregnancy is for a sex related reason, and is discriminatory, and unlawful irrespective of the contractual right being otherwise applied equally to men suffering illness. Pregnancy is a period during which . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78708

Brown v Rentokil Ltd: ECJ 30 Jun 1998

Dismissal for any illness associated with pregnancy is for a sex related reason, and is discriminatory, and unlawful irrespective of the contractual right being otherwise applied equally to men suffering illness. Pregnancy is a period during which disorders and complications may arise compelling a woman to undergo strict medical supervision and, in some cases, to take absolute rest for all or part of her pregnancy. Those disorders and complications, which may cause incapacity for work, form part of the risks inherent in the condition of pregnancy and are thus a specific feature of that condition

Judges:

C. Gulmann, P

Citations:

Times 02-Jul-1998, Gazette 09-Sep-1998, [1998] IRLR 445, C-394/96, ECJ/CFI Bulletin 18/98, 1, [1998] EUECJ C-394/96, [1998] ECR I-4185, [1998] ICR 790, [1998] Fam Law 597, [1999] 1 FCR 49, [1998] 2 FLR 649, [1998] 2 CMLR 1049, [1998] CEC 829

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 177, Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment etc

Citing:

Appeal from – ReversedBrown v Rentokil Ltd IHCS 10-Mar-1995
Mrs Brown was employed by Rentokil as a driver, transporting and changing ‘Sanitact’ units in shops. In her view, it was heavy work. She told Rentokil that she was pregnant. She had difficulties associated with the pregnancy. From 16 August 1990 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78709

Burghartz v Switzerland: ECHR 22 Feb 1994

It was sex discrimination to prevent a husband using his and his wife’s surnames, but not to prevent the wife doing the same. The use of name is a means of personal identity and of linking it to a family.
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Preliminary objection rejected (victim); Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion); Violation of Art. 14+8; Not necessary to examine Art. 8; Costs and expenses partial award – domestic proceedings; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings

Judges:

R. Ryssdal, P

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-1994, [1994] ECHR 2, 16213/90, (1994) 18 EHRR 101

Links:

Worldlii, Bailii, HUDOC

Cited by:

CitedMarper v United Kingdom; S v United Kingdom ECHR 4-Dec-2008
(Grand Chamber) The applicants complained that on being arrested on suspicion of offences, samples of their DNA had been taken, but then despite being released without conviction, the samples had retained on the Police database.
Held: . .
CitedAttorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1999: Application By the British Broadcasting Corporation To Set Aside or Vary a Reporting Restriction Order HL 17-Jun-2009
An application was made to discharge an anonymity order made in previous criminal proceedings before the House. The defendant was to be retried for rape under the 2003 Act, after an earlier acquittal. The applicant questioned whether such a order . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78749

British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: HL 23 May 1996

The phrase ‘common terms of employment’ means broadly comparable terms. There is no need for them to be identical, and the phrase should be construed liberally, though there can be no general commonality where there is no commonality in terms and conditions between comparative establishments.
Lord Slynn said that the terms had to be sufficiently similar to allow a fair comparison to be made: ‘generally’ does not necessarily mean ‘all’.
A genuine material factor defence, between different collective bargaining pay structures for claimant and comparator work groups, can become discriminatory: ‘Whilst accepting that differences in rates of pay historically were due to separate bargaining processes, which themselves were untainted by sex, the question remained whether at the relevant date (January 1986) the difference between workers had been shown by the Corporation to be objectively justified on grounds other than sex.’

Judges:

Lord Slynn

Citations:

Times 23-May-1996, Gazette 12-Sep-1996, Gazette 03-Jul-1996, [1996] ICR 515

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(6), Employment Protection Act 1970 1(2)(c)

Citing:

CitedLeverton v Clwyd County Council HL 1989
The claimant, employed as a nursery nurse by the respondent in an infant school sought to compare herself with clerical staff employed by the respondent, but not in schools.
Held: The employee’s appeal succeeded. The majority of the Employment . .

Cited by:

CitedWhite v Burton’s Foods Ltd EAT 6-Jul-2010
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Like work
The Claimant had been employed by the Respondent since 1984 before becoming Production Planning Manager at the Respondent’s Blackpool site. She brought a claim under the Equal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78619

British Coal Corporation v Smith and Others: EAT 23 Feb 1993

An application of equal pay involved consideration of 150 comparators, and at great cost to all involved. The industrial members of the tribunal, with the support of the legal member, criticised the delay and complexity of Employment law. The growing complexity of industrial law was operating against the interests of those seeking to work within it in industry.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 208, Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983 (1983 No 1794)

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78623

British Sugar Plc v Kirker: EAT 3 Feb 1999

The Tribunal was not wrong to find disability discrimination where an employee was selected for redundancy drawing inferences from events which had occurred before the Act came into force. No need in this law for comparison with treatment of comparitors.

Citations:

Gazette 03-Feb-1999, [1998] IRLR 624

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78635

British Telecommunications Plc v Williams: EAT 3 Jun 1997

Sexual harassment was defined as ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, or other conduct based upon sex affecting dignity at work’. It would be no defence to a complaint of sexual harassment that a person of the opposite sex would have been similarly treated. In general in cases of sexual harassment there is no necessity to look for a comparison with a particular person of the opposite sex.

Judges:

Morison J

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jan-1998, [1997] IRLR 668, [1997] UKEAT 1340 – 95 – 0306

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

DisapprovedMacDonald v Advocate General for Scotland (Scotland); Pearce v Governing Body of Mayfield School HL 19-Jun-2003
Three appeals raised issues about the way in which sex discrimination laws were to be applied for cases involving sexual orientation.
Held: The court should start by asking what gave rise to the act complained of. In this case it was the . .
CitedPearce v Mayfield School CA 31-Jul-2001
The claimant teacher was a lesbian. She complained that her school in failed to protect her against abuse from pupils for her lesbianism. She appealed against a decision that the acts of the pupils did not amount to discrimination, and that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78649

Bossa v Nordstress Ltd: EAT 13 Mar 1998

The defendant company had refused to employ the complainant at Heathrow on the basis that he was Italian, and relied upon exemptions in the 1976 Act.
Held: A Statutory provision which permitted discrimination against a worker employed in Europe operated against the Treaty obligation to afford free movement of workers and is to be ignored.

Citations:

Times 13-Mar-1998

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 8, EC Treaty Art 48

Discrimination, European

Updated: 18 May 2022; Ref: scu.78497

Regina v Ministry of Defence Ex Parte Smith and Others: QBD 7 Jun 1995

An MOD ban on employing homosexuals was not Wednesbury unreasonable, even though it might be out of date. Pannick (counsel for the applicant, approved): ‘The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.’ After referring to changes of attitude in society towards same-sex relationships: ‘I regard the progressive development and refinement of public and professional opinion at home and abroad, here very briefly described, as an important feature of this case. A belief which represented unquestioned orthodoxy in year X may have become questionable by year Y and unsustainable by year Z. Public and professional opinion are a continuum.’
Sir Thomas Bingham MR: ‘It is, inevitably, common ground that the United Kingdom’s obligation, [under article 8] binding in international law, to respect and secure compliance with this article is not one that is enforceable by domestic courts. The relevance of the Convention in the present context is as background to the complaint of irrationality. The fact that a decision-maker failed to take account of convention obligations when exercising an administrative discretion is not of itself a ground for impugning that exercise of discretion.’

Judges:

Simon Brown LJ and Curtis J

Citations:

Times 13-Jun-1995, Independent 08-Jun-1995

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 8

Citing:

CitedAssociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation CA 10-Nov-1947
Administrative Discretion to be Used Reasonably
The applicant challenged the manner of decision making as to the conditions which had been attached to its licence to open the cinema on Sundays. It had not been allowed to admit children under 15 years of age. The statute provided no appeal . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromRegina v Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina v Same Ex Parte Grady Etc CA 6-Nov-1995
A ban on homosexuals serving in the armed forces was not irrational, and the challenge to the ban failed. The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Turgut CA 28-Jan-2000
When the Court of Appeal was asked to look at the decision of the Home Secretary on an appeal to him for asylum, the court should investigate the factual circumstances which lay behind the decision. The court must follow the practice of the European . .
CitedCumming and others v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police CA 17-Dec-2003
The six claimants sought damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. Each had been arrested on an officer’s suspicion. They operated CCTV equipment, and it appeared that tapes showing the commission of an offence had been tampered with. Each . .
CitedFitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd HL 28-Oct-1999
Same Sex Paartner to Inherit as Family Member
The claimant had lived with the original tenant in a stable and long standing homosexual relationship at the deceased’s flat. After the tenant’s death he sought a statutory tenancy as a spouse of the deceased. The Act had been extended to include as . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for The Home Department Ex Parte Simms HL 8-Jul-1999
Ban on Prisoners talking to Journalists unlawful
The two prisoners, serving life sentences for murder, had had their appeals rejected. They continued to protest innocence, and sought to bring their campaigns to public attention through the press, having oral interviews with journalists without . .
CitedRegina v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ex parte Manelfi Admn 25-Oct-1996
The applicant sought judicial review of the defendant’s refusal to employ him to work at GCHQ, which had a policy not to employ anyone with non-British parents save exceptionally. The claimant said this was racially discriminatory.
Held: The . .
CitedRogers, Regina (on the Application of) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust CA 12-Apr-2006
The claimant challenged the policy of her local health authority not to allow prescription to her of the drug Herceptin.
Held: The policy had not been settled upon lawfully and was to be set aside. On the one hand the PCT developed a policy . .
CitedHuang v Secretary of State for the Home Department HL 21-Mar-2007
Appellate Roles – Human Rights – Families Split
The House considered the decision making role of immigration appellate authorities when deciding appeals on Human Rights grounds, against refusal of leave to enter or remain, under section 65. In each case the asylum applicant had had his own . .
Appeal fromRegina v Ministry of Defence ex parte Smith; ex parte Grady CA 3-Nov-1995
Four appellants challenged the policy of the ministry to discharge homosexuals from the armed services.
Held: Where a measure affects fundamental rights or has profoundly intrusive effects, the courts will anxiously scrutinise the decision to . .
CitedBancoult, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) HL 22-Oct-2008
The claimants challenged the 2004 Order which prevented their return to their homes on the Chagos Islands. The islanders had been taken off the island to leave it for use as a US airbase. In 2004, the island was no longer needed, and payment had . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Administrative, Human Rights, Discrimination, Armed Forces

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.87365

Atkins v Wrekin District Council and Another: ECJ 11 Jul 1996

A concessionary fares scheme did not fall within the scope of sex discrimination laws. Equal treatment of men and women – Concessionary fares on public passenger transport services – Scope of Directive 79/7/EEC – Link with retirement age.
ECJ On a proper interpretation of Article 3(1) of Directive 79/7 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, a scheme under which concessionary fares on public passenger transport services are granted to certain classes of persons, including certain elderly persons, does not fall within the scope of the Directive.
First, a benefit consisting of concessionary fares on public passenger transport services does not afford direct and effective protection against one of the risks listed in Article 3(1) and the fact that the recipient of a benefit is, as a matter of fact, because of his age, in one of the situations envisaged by that article does not suffice to bring that benefit as such within the scope of the Directive.
Secondly, it cannot be concluded from the fact that, besides referring to the field of social security, Article 1 of Directive 79/7 refers to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 and that Article 3(1)(a) refers to statutory schemes which provide protection against the risks listed, without specifying that those schemes must fall under social security, that the scope of the Directive extends to social protection as a whole, and consequently to measures such as the said concessionary fares. In view of the unequivocal terms of the title of Directive 79/7, the various recitals in its preamble and Article 1 thereof, which all state that the Directive is intended to ensure the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security, the reference to other elements of social protection provided for in Article 3 cannot be interpreted otherwise than as referring to provisions concerning social assistance, which generally fall outside the area of social security but fall within the scope of the Directive pursuant to Article 3(1)(b) where they are intended to supplement or replace the schemes referred to in Article 3(1)(a).

Judges:

G.C. Rodriguez Iglesias, P

Citations:

Times 02-Aug-1996, C-228/94, [1996] EUECJ C-228/94

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Transport Act 1985 93(7), Directive 79/7/EEC

Discrimination, European, Transport

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77938

Angestelltenbetriebsrat Der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse v Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse: ECJ 20 May 1999

Where two groups worked doing similar work, but one had superior qualifications, those qualifications could justify a pay differential. They were not to be treated as doing the same work.

Citations:

Times 20-May-1999, C-309/97, [1999] EUECJ C-309/97, [2000] ICR 1134

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 75/117/EEC on the approximation of laws relating to equal pay for men and women., EC Treaty Art 234

Cited by:

CitedMatthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns and Fire Authority and others HL 1-Mar-2006
Retained or part-time firefighters sought parity of working conditions with full time firefighters.
Held: The retained firefighters’ appeal succeeded (Lords Carswell and Mance dissenting). The test was whether the part-time and full time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, European

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.77799

City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt: EAT 4 Oct 2006

EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the basis for the grievance. Held, allowing the appeal, that the employee had not done so.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Richardson

Citations:

UKEAT/0391/06

Links:

EATn

Statutes:

Employment Act 2002

Citing:

CitedShergold v Fieldway Medical Centre EAT 5-Dec-2005
The claimant had submitted a grievance complaining in general terms of the way in which she had been treated by a manager. She did not, however, refer to a particular incident relied on in her pleading as one of the two ‘last straw’ incidents that . .
CitedCanary Wharf Management Limited v Edebi EAT 3-Mar-2006
EAT Practice and Procedure – striking-out/dismissal
Grievance procedures. Were they complied with? Held not to be in the circumstances of this case. Observations on what counts as compliance and how . .
CitedGrimmer v KLM Cityhopper UK EAT 17-Mar-2005
Claimant provided appropriate details of the claim
EAT Application to ET rejected by ET under Rules 1-3 of the 2004 Rules of Procedure contained in Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2004 because claimant did . .
CitedAlexander and Hatherley v Bridgen Enterprises Ltd EAT 12-Apr-2006
The company made selections for redundancy, but failed to give the appellants information about how the scoring system had resulted in the figures allocated. The calculations left their representative unable to challenge them on appeal. The . .

Cited by:

See AlsoCity of Bradford Metropolitan District Council v Pratt EAT 9-Jan-2007
bradford_prattEAT2007
EAT Practice and Procedure
Statutory dispute resolution procedures introduced by the Employment Act 2002 – modified grievance procedure – whether employee complied with requirement to set out in writing the . .
CitedRiley v First Choice Homes Oldham Ltd EAT 30-Apr-2008
riley_firstEAT2008
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 . .
CitedClyde Valley Housing Association Ltd v Macaulay EAT 3-Apr-2008
clyde_macaulayEAT2008
EAT Jurisdictional Points: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Statutory grievance procedure. Modified procedure. Whether letter from claimant’s solicitor set out the basis for her grievance. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.257999

London Borough of Southwark v Jiminez: EAT 17 Apr 2002

EAT Contract of Employment – Breach of Contract.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bell

Citations:

EAT/1326/99

Links:

EAT

Cited by:

At EATLondon Borough of Southwark v Jiminez CA 31-Jul-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal – granted on limited grounds . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 17 May 2022; Ref: scu.255970

Lupetti v Wrens Old House Ltd: EAT 1984

The applicant was given notice on 3rd February 1983 terminating his employment on 28th February 1983. The question arose on appeal whether the date of the notice or the date when he left employment was the relevant date.
Held: With a discriminatory dismissal, time does not run until the notice of dismissal has expired and the employment ceased: ‘ The act complained of here is the dismissal of the applicant and the short point is: for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976, did that dismissal occur on 3 February, when notice was given, or 28 February, when the employment was terminated? We have been referred, in this context, to Dedman v. British Building and Engineering Appliances Ltd. [1974] I.C.R. 53, which dealt with the effective date of termination of a contract, and we find that decision and, indeed, definitions which occur in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 of no help to us in this case, because Dedman’s case is dealing with a different section, and the definitions in the Act of 1978 cover matters on which the Race Relations Act 1976 is silent. It appears to us that we have to approach the construction of the Act of 1976 by considering what was the mischief that Parliament was intending to cover by providing that it was unlawful to discriminate against an employee by dismissing him.
Putting it quite shortly, it seems to us that the mischief which Parliament was intending to cover by those provisions was that of a person finding himself out of a job because of racial or other discriminatory grounds. If that be right (and it appears to us that it is), then the act complained of is the termination of employment and accordingly the effective date for considering when time starts to run is the date when the man finds himself out of job rather than the date when he is given notice.’
Balcombe LJ said: ‘That is sufficient to dispose of this appeal but, in case it goes elsewhere and in order to give proper respect to the able arguments which were presented to us by both counsel in this case, it is right that we should deal with the two other grounds of appeal. The second ground of appeal was that section 68(7)(b) of the Act of 1976 provides that any act extending over a period should be treated as done at the end of that period. Mr Cofie, for the applicant, argues that the act of dismissal extended over the period between the giving of notice and the date when the notice expired. Accordingly, under that subsection, it should be treated as having occurred at the end of the period.
We accept Mr Jeremy’s submissions on that ground of appeal both that it is inconsistent with the earlier argument which we have accepted – although that does not of itself render the earlier argument the less effective – but secondly this was not an act done over a period. It was an act of dismissal. Either that act took place when the notice was given or, as we have held, when the employment terminated. So we reject that ground of appeal.’

Judges:

Balcombe LJ

Citations:

[1984] ICR 348

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 68(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 May 2022; Ref: scu.616315

Goodwin v Patent Office: EAT 3 Feb 1999

Tribunals looking at Disability Discrimination should check the four factors in the Act without losing the overall picture. Assistance was available from the WHO Classification of Diseases. Being able to carry out a task did not mean ability was not impaired. ‘The tribunal should bear in mind that with social legislation of this kind, a purposive approach to construction should be adopted. The language should be construed in a way which gives effect to the stated or presumed intention of Parliament, but with due regard to the ordinary and natural meaning of the words in question. ‘ and ‘the tribunal must consider whether the adverse effect is substantial. This is a word which is potentially ambiguous. ‘Substantial’ might mean ‘very large’ or it might mean ‘more than minor or trivial’. Reference to the Guide shows that the word has been used in the latter sense’ and ‘The Tribunal will wish to examine how the applicant’s abilities had actually been effected at the material time, whilst on medication, and then to address their minds to the difficult question as to the effects which they think there would have been but for the medication: the deduced effects. The question is then whether the actual and deduced effects on the applicant’s abilities to carry out normal day to day activities is clearly more than trivial.’

Judges:

Morison P

Citations:

Times 03-Feb-1999, [1999] IRLR 4, [1999] ICR 302

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995 1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .

Cited by:

CitedRugamel v Sony Music Entertainment UK Ltd; McNicol v Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance Ltd EAT 28-Aug-2001
Both cases questioned the extent, as a disability, of functional or psychological ‘overlay’, where there may be no medical condition underlying the symptoms which the employee claims to be present. Neither claimant had asserted any psychological . .
See alsoGoodwin v Patent Office EAT 21-Oct-1998
An ability to carry out normal domestic day to day tasks did not mean that a physical impairment was not substantial. The word ‘substantial’ is potentially ambiguous. In that it might mean ‘very large’ or ‘more than minor or trivial’. The code of . .
Cited1 Pump Court Chambers v Horton EAT 2-Dec-2003
The chambers appealed a finding of discrimination, saying that a pupil was not a member of the set so as to qualify under the Act.
Held: The barristers set or chambers was a trade organisation, but the position of a pupil barrister was not . .
CitedMurphy v Sheffield Hallam University EAT 11-Jan-2000
The claimant challenged refusal of his claim of discrimination. He was profoundly deaf. He applied for work, and indicated his disability, but no provision was made for a signer to appear at the interview. The interview was re-arranged, but he . .
CitedCouncil of the City of Manchester v Romano, Samariz CA 1-Jul-2004
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 . .
CitedA McKenzie v East Sussex County Council EAT 13-Dec-1999
EAT Disability Discrimination – Disability
The parties sought to settle the appeal by consent. The Tribunal was obliged to consider the merits before making an order. In this case the order requested was . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
CitedAbadeh v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 19-Oct-2000
EAT The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim under the 1995 Act. He was a telephone operator injured after a sudden shriek in his ear. They had found him not to be disabled within the 1995 Act.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.80924

Ciasse Nationale D’Assurance Vieillesse Des Travailleurs Salries v Thibault: ECJ 13 May 1998

Rules which precluded an employee who was absent for maternity reasons from taking part in performance assessments affecting future promotion rights were breach of Council Directive.

Citations:

Times 13-May-1998

Statutes:

Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment Art 2(3) Art 5(1)

Discrimination, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.79129

Abdoulaya and Others v Regie Nationale Des Usines Renault SA: ECJ 20 Oct 1999

A payment of a lump sum to female workers taking maternity leave so as to offset occupational disadvantage from the taking of that leave was not an infringement of equal pay provisions. The claim was that the payment went beyond making allowance for physical differences accompanying maternity to recompense for social disadvantage was equally felt by both men and women. The payment was proper since it did reflect real differences arising from the absence from work.

Citations:

Times 20-Oct-1999, C-218/98, [1999] EUECJ C-218/98

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Treaty Art 14

Discrimination, European

Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.77607

Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland v Bone: 15 Sep 1993

The court was asked as to the meaning of ‘qualification’ when considered under the Act: ‘It is our view that the word ‘qualification’ itself and the other words in the definition viz ‘authority, recognition, registration, enrolment, approval and certification’ convey with reasonable clarity the idea of (a) some sort of status conferred on an employee or self-employed person in relation to his work, or the work which he proposes to do; and as respects a self-employed person, in relation to his trade, profession or calling or to what he proposes to be his trade, profession or calling; (b) a status which relates only to a person carrying on that work or trade, profession or calling; and (c) is either necessary for the lawful carrying on thereof or making that carrying on more advantageous.’

Citations:

Unreported, 15 September 1993

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 23

Jurisdiction:

Northern Ireland

Cited by:

CitedKelly v Northern Ireland Housing Executive; Loughran v Northern Ireland Housing Executive HL 29-Jul-1998
Provisions against discrimination on religious grounds in Northern Ireland, could apply to appointment of a firm to a panel of experts, where one person was designated to carry out that work. ‘it is essential, for there to be ’employment,’ that the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 13 May 2022; Ref: scu.194285

Governors of Warwick Park School v Hazelhurst: CA 2001

‘In my judgment the Employment Appeal Tribunal were correct to hold that there was an error of law in the decision of the Employment Tribunal as identified by the Employment Appeal Tribunal. In a situation in which it is expressly found that there was no deliberate or conscious racial discrimination, it is necessary, before drawing the inference sought to be drawn, to set out the facts relied on and the process by which the inference is drawn. In some cases that process of reasoning need only be brief; in other cases more detailed reasoning will be required. The Employment Appeal Tribunal approached the matter in this way: ‘… we do suggest that the less obvious the primary facts are as pointers or the more inconclusive or ambivalent the explanations given for the events in issue are as pointers, the more the need for the Employment Tribunal to explain why it is that from such primary facts and upon such explanations the inference that they have drawn has been drawn. The more equivocal the primary facts, the more the Employment Tribunal needs to explain why they have concluded as they have.’ and ‘As we have mentioned the tribunal repeatedly said that there had been no intention to discriminate. That, of course, is not in itself an answer but it is likely to lead to a position in which the reasons for the inference of racial discrimination need to be fully explained.’

Judges:

Pill LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 2056

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedThe Law Society v Kamlesh Bahl EAT 7-Jul-2003
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The complainant had been suspended from her position as Vice President of the Law Society. The Society and its officers appealed findings of sex and race discrimination . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.185542

D C D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth: CA 2001

The court dismissed the claimant’s claim for damages for racial discrimination for acts occurring after the termination of his employment by the respondents.
Held: Applying Adekeye, the claim was dismissed, but the court saw ‘some force’ in the submission that the decision in Adekeye’s case could have gone the other way.

Judges:

Schiemann and Robert Walker LJJ and Lloyd J

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 794

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedPost Office v Adekeye CA 13-Nov-1996
Race discrimination which took place after a dismissal was not unlawful within the section, since that first required the context of employment, and after the dismissal, the applicant was no longer in that employment. The natural meaning of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.183745

Dr (Mrs) U A Uruakpa v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons: EAT 18 Jun 2001

The applicant appealed an order striking out her complaint of race discrimination as hopeless. She sought recognition as a veterinary surgeon. Her claim had been dismissed because, under the section the College exercised a statutory power. She asserted that the regulations gave a wide discretion to the College to exempt individuals from all or part of the qualification procedures. It was held that the discretion only applied to those who already held one or more of the qualifications which were recognised. She claimed also that the tribunal system denied her the possibility of equality of arms, and therefore a fair hearing under art 6. The EAT held that the tribunal system was designed to be informal, and Chairmen are specifically required to give assistance to lay parties. There was no breach of that right.
EAT Human Rights –

Judges:

His Honour Judge J Altman

Citations:

EAT/1074/98

Statutes:

Veterinary Surgeon (Examination of Commonwealth and Foreign Candidates) Regulations 1967 Sch para 5, Race Relations Act 1976 41

Human Rights, Discrimination, Health Professions, Employment

Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.168224

Sawyer v Ahsam: CA 21 Sep 1999

A local councillor deselected for a forthcoming election by his political party had the capacity to claim racial discrimination in respect of the deselection, since the holding of office as a councillor could amount to engagement in a profession, and the political party had the power to confer the qualification by selection to go forward for election.

Citations:

Times 21-Sep-1999

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.89034

Gill v El Vino Co Ltd: CA 1983

The plaintiffs, who were both women, wanted to stand and drink at the bar in the defendants’ wine bar but the barman refused to serve them and said that, if they sat at a table, the drinks would be brought to them. That was because only men were permitted to stand and drink at the bar.
Held: The plaintiffs were the victims of unlawful discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
Griffiths LJ said: ‘But if a woman wishes to go to El Vino’s, she is not allowed to join the throng before the bar. She must drink either at one of the two tables on the right of the entrance, or she must pass through the throng and drink in the smoking room at the back. There is no doubt whatever that she is refused facilities that are accorded to men, and the only question that remains is: is she being treated less favourably than men? I think that permits of only one answer: of course she is. She is not being allowed to drink where she may want to drink, namely standing up among the many people gathered in front of the bar. There are many reasons why she may want to do so. Her friends may be there. She may not want to break them up and force them to move to some other part of the premises where she is permitted to drink. Or she may wish, if she is a journalist, to join a group in the hope of picking up the gossip of the day. If male journalists are permitted to do it, why shouldn’t she? If she is denied it she is being treated less favourably than her male colleagues.’
Sir Roger Ormrod said: ‘The question posed by section 29(1)(a) of the Act of 1975 is unusually simple compared with most questions posed by statutes. We are enjoined simply to ask whether on this evidence the plaintiffs in this case were ‘treated less favourably’ than a man or men would have been. To my mind, the fact that men have the three options which Griffiths LJ has mentioned makes only one answer to that question possible. Men have these options and the options are valuable to them, and I find it impossible to say, where one sex has an option and the other has not, that there is not a differentiation between them and, prima facie, a differentiation which results in less favourable treatment.’

Judges:

Griffiths LJ, Sir Roger Ormrod

Citations:

[1983] 1 QB 423 I

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedChief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills v The Interim Executive Board of Al-Hijrah School CA 13-Oct-2017
Single Sex Schooling failed to prepare for life
The Chief Inspector appealed from a decision that it was discriminatory under the 2010 Act to educate girls and boys in the same school but under a system providing effective complete separation of the sexes.
Held: The action was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 11 May 2022; Ref: scu.597256

Hearne v National Assembly for Wales and Another: CA 10 Nov 1999

When looking at whether a person was a gypsy so as to qualify for additional consideration, the test was to be applied at the time when the decision was made and not when the application was made. It was acknowledged that an applicant could change status from time to time, and that this might lead to some logical inconsistency, but the statute was clear and no supporting guidance suggested otherwise.

Citations:

Times 10-Nov-1999

Statutes:

Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromHearne v Secretary of State for Wales and Carmarthenshire County Council Admn 25-May-1999
. .

Cited by:

CitedWrexham County Borough v The National Assembly of Wales, Michael Berry, Florence Berry CA 19-Jun-2003
A traditional gypsy family had settled because of ill health, and sought to establish a caravan site. The authority claimed they were no longer to be treated as Gypsy and having the entitlement under the Act.
Held: The Act defined ‘Gypsies’ as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Planning

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.81295

Du Toit and Vos v Minister for Welfare and Population Development: 10 Sep 2002

(South African Constitutional Court) Prospective adoptive parents were a same-sex couple who challenged laws preventing them from adopting. The court said: ‘In their current form the impugned provisions exclude from their ambit potential joint adoptive parents who are unmarried, but who are partners in permanent same-sex life partnerships and who would otherwise meet the criteria set out in section 18 of the Child Care Act . . Their exclusion surely defeats the very essence and social purpose of adoption which is to provide the stability, commitment, affection and support important to a child’s development, which can be offered by suitably qualified persons . . Excluding partners in same sex life partnerships from adopting children jointly where they would otherwise be suitable to do so is in conflict with the principle [of the paramountcy of the interests of the child] . . It is clear from the evidence in this case that even though persons such as the applicants are suitable to adopt children jointly and provide them with family care, they cannot do so. The impugned provisions . . thus deprive children of the possibility of a loving and stable family life . . The provisions of the Child Care Act thus fail to accord paramountcy to the best interests of the children.’

Citations:

(2002) 13 BHRC 187, [2002] ZACC 20, CCT 40/01

Links:

Saflii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedIn re P and Others, (Adoption: Unmarried couple) (Northern Ireland); In re G HL 18-Jun-2008
The applicants complained that as an unmarried couple they had been excluded from consideration as adopters.
Held: Northern Ireland legislation had not moved in the same way as it had for other jurisdictions within the UK. The greater . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Constitutional, Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.270010

North Devon Homes Housing Association v Brazier: QBD 2003

The tenant was guilty of nuisance, but her misbehaviour was attributable to her psychotic state – her ‘disability’ within the 1995 Act.
Held: Though a very pertinent factor to be taken into account may be a housing authority’s obligations to other tenants on a housing estate and the interests of those other tenants, though the situation may be affected by the Act when the tenant suffers some mental impairment: ‘on the facts of the present case, the issue is one of fact: whether the breach of the tenancy terms was caused by the disability’. Since the evidence showed that the tenant ‘was unable [due to her disability] to prevent herself from behaving in [the objectionable] manner’ the 1995 Act was engaged, and the landlord had to establish sufficient justification to satisfy section 24(1)(b) of that Act if an order for possession was to be made. The 1995 Act did not bar all evictions but ‘only those which were not justified in the specific circumstances set out in section 24 and it ‘furnishes its own code for justified eviction which requires a higher threshold’, a threshold higher than that in the Housing Act 1988.

Judges:

David Steel J

Citations:

[2003] HLR 905, [2003] EWHC 574 (QB)

Statutes:

Housing Act 1988, Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .

Cited by:

CitedKnowsley Housing Trust v McMullen CA 9-May-2006
The defendant tenant appealed an order for possession of her flat. She was disabled and living with her 19 year old son. He had been made subject to an anti-social behaviour order. The court had found that she could have required him to leave. The . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Housing, Discrimination

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.234717

MA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: SC 9 Nov 2016

The appellants claimed housing benefit. They appealed against rejection of their claims that the imposition of limits to the maximum sums payable, ‘the bedroom tax’, was unlawful on equality grounds. The claimants either had disabilities, or lived with dependent family with disabilities, or live in what are known as ‘sanctuary scheme’ homes (accommodation specially adapted to provide protection for women at severe risk of domestic violence). They were all tenants of registered social landlords and they all receive or received HB.
Held: The appeal of Carmichael the appeal succeeded, but the other benefits claimants failed. The standard test in cases involving questions of economic and social policy was whether the discrimination was ‘manifestly without reasonable foundation’. How to deal with the impact of Reg B13 on individuals with disabilities was just such a question of economic and social policy; the housing benefit cap scheme was integral to the structure of the welfare benefit scheme. The Court of Appeal was therefore correct to apply this test
Otherwise: Daly and Others, Regina (on the application of) (formerly known as MA and others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pension
Regina (Carmichael) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes, Lord Toulson

Citations:

[2016] UKSC 58, [2016] WLR(D) 582, UKSC 2014/0129, [2016] PTSR 1422, (2017) 20 CCL Rep 103, [2016] 1 WLR 4550, [2017] 1 All ER 869, [2016] HRLR 24
Summary

Links:

Bailii, WLRD, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summ Video, SC290216 am, SC290216 pm, SC010316 am, SC010316 pm, SC020316 am, SC020316 pm

Statutes:

Housing Benefit Regulations 2006, European Convention on Human Rights 8 14, Equality Act 2010 149

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromRutherford and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 27-Jan-2016
Challenge to lawfulness of regulations applying a discount to payments of housing benefits when there was deemed to be a spare bedroom.
Held: The appeal succeeded in part. . .
At first instanceMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 30-Jul-2013
Ten disabled claimants challenged the changes to the 2006 Regulations introduced by the 2012 Regulations. The changes restricted the ability to claim Housing Benefit for bedrooms deemed extra. The claimants said that in their different ways each had . .
Appeal fromMA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 21-Feb-2014
The claimants were in recipet of housing benefit. They claimed that the new benefits cap (‘bedroom tax’) discriminated against them when additional space was need for the care of family members with disabilities . .
CitedBurnip v Birmingham City Council and Another CA 15-May-2012
The court considered an allegation of discrimination in the application of housing benefit for a disabled person.
Held: The claimants had established a prima facie case of discrimination under Article 14 of the ECHR, and that the Secretary of . .
CitedBracking and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 6-Nov-2013
Application for permission to appeal against refusal of leave to bring judicial review of decision by the respondent to close the Independent Living Fund.
Held: McCombe LJ summarised the application of section 149 of the 2010 Act: ‘1 . . . .
CitedJS and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and Others QBD 5-Nov-2013
The claimants challenged the benefits cap introduced under the 2012 Act, saying that it was discriminatory, affecting more women than men. Mr Eadie QC submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State that, as ‘an international instrument with no . .

Cited by:

CitedMcLaughlin, Re Judicial Review SC 30-Aug-2018
The applicant a differently sexed couple sought to marry under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, but complained that they would lose the benefits of widowed parent’s allowance. Parliament had decided to delay such rules to allow assessment of reaction . .
CitedDA and Others, Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 15-May-2019
Several lone parents challenged the benefits cap, saying that it was discriminatory.
Held: (Hale, Kerr LL dissenting) The parents’ appeals failed. The legislation had a clear impact on lone parents and their children. The intention was to . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.570982

Francis v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 10 Nov 2005

The applicant had sought payment of a ‘Sure Start’ maternity grant. She had obtained a residence order in respect of her sister’s baby daughter who had been taken into care. She said that a payment would have been made to the partner of a mother or an adopter, and that she should be similarly entitled.
Held: The regulations were discriminatory, and a declaration was granted. ‘we are bound to apply the test suggested by the House of Lords and to examine whether the ground for different treatment in this case amounts to a status in the sense of a personal characteristic. ‘ and ‘administrative convenience cannot in itself be a sufficient justification for discrimination without some other justification as to why those in an analogous or relevantly similar situation are being excluded.’ Where the Secretary of State relies on administrative convenience and ‘bright line’ rules he must still show some ‘serious adverse consequences’ to justify the discrimination.

Judges:

Auld LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Sir Peter Gibson

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 1303, Times 17-Nov-2005, [2006] 1 WLR 3202

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 14, Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Expenses (General) Regulations 1987 5

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedCarson, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions; Reynolds v Same HL 26-May-2005
One claimant said that as a foreign resident pensioner, she had been excluded from the annual uprating of state retirement pension, and that this was an infringement of her human rights. Another complained at the lower levels of job-seeker’s . .
CitedHooper and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions HL 5-May-2005
Widowers claimed that, in denying them benefits which would have been payable to widows, the Secretary of State had acted incompatibly with their rights under article 14 read with article 1 of Protocol 1 and article 8 of the ECHR.
Held: The . .
CitedKjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Peddersen v Denmark ECHR 7-Dec-1976
The claimants challenged the provision of compulsory sex education in state primary schools.
Held: The parents’ philosophical and religious objections to sex education in state schools was rejected on the ground that they could send their . .
CitedThe National and Provincial Building Society, The Leeds Permanent Building Society And The Yorkshire Building Society v The United Kingdom ECHR 23-Oct-1997
There was no breach of human rights by the retrospective removal of a right to reclaim overpaid tax. Such a decision was within the general power of a government to impose and collect tax. Not every difference in treatment will amount to a violation . .
CitedPetrovic v Austria ECHR 27-Mar-1998
The applicant was refused a grant of parental leave allowance in 1989. At that time parental leave allowance was available only to mothers. The applicant complained that this violated article 14 taken together with article 8.
Held: The . .
CitedS, Regina (on Application of) v South Yorkshire Police; Regina v Chief Constable of Yorkshire Police ex parte Marper HL 22-Jul-2004
Police Retention of Suspects DNA and Fingerprints
The claimants complained that their fingerprints and DNA records taken on arrest had been retained after discharge before trial, saying the retention of the samples infringed their right to private life.
Held: The parts of DNA used for testing . .
CitedEngel And Others v The Netherlands (1) ECHR 8-Jun-1976
The court was asked whether proceedings in a military court against soldiers for disciplinary offences involved criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1): ‘In this connection, it is first necessary to know whether the provision(s) defining . .
CitedRegina v A (Complainant’s Sexual History) (No 2) HL 17-May-2001
The fact of previous consensual sex between complainant and defendant could be relevant in a trial of rape, and a refusal to allow such evidence could amount to a denial of a fair trial to a defendant. Accordingly, where the evidence was so relevant . .

Cited by:

CitedStewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions CA 29-Jul-2011
The court considered the arrangements for providing public support for the costs of funerals. The claimant’s son had died whilst she was in prison. Assistance had been refused because, as a prisoner, she was not receiving benefits. She complained . .
CitedRR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 13-Nov-2019
Housing benefit regulations had been found unlawful and were amended. The Court now considered what payments should have been made before the amendments came into effect.
Held: The appeal was allowed, and RR’s housing benefit entitlement is to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Benefits, European, Discrimination, Human Rights

Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.234694

Clarke v South Gloucestershire Council: EAT 17 Oct 2006

EAT Race Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Underhill

Citations:

UKEAT/0201/06

Links:

EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See AlsoClarke v South Gloucestershire Council EAT 19-Dec-2006
EAT Race discrimination – Direct/ Victimisation
Challenge to decision of Tribunal on basis that reasoning perverse and/or inadequate – Challenge rejected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.257982

Sessa v Italy: ECHR 3 Apr 2012

A Jewish lawyer complained that the refusal to adjourn his case to a date which did not coincide with the Jewish holidays of Yom Kippur and Sukkot was an interference with his right to manifest his religion. His complaint was dismissed by a majority of 4 to 3. A powerful minority pointed out that, for a measure to be proportionate, the authority must choose the means which is least restrictive of rights and freedoms. Thus, seeking a reasonable accommodation may, in some circumstances, constitute a less restrictive means of achieving the aim pursued. Mr Sessa had given the Italian court ample notice of the problem and reorganising the lists to accommodate him would cause minimal disruption to the administration of justice – ‘a small price to be paid in order to ensure respect for freedom of religion in a multi-cultural society’

Citations:

28790/08

Links:

HUDOC

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540516

Eadie and Thomas v Riverbend Bed and Breakfast and others (No 2): 2012

British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal – a gay couple had reserved a room in bed and breakfast accommodation offered by a Christian couple in their own home, but when the husband learned that the couple were gay, the booking was cancelled.
Held: There had been a failure in the duty of reasonable accommodation, in the offensive manner of the cancellation and the failure to explore alternatives.

Citations:

2012 BCHRT 247

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBull and Another v Hall and Another SC 27-Nov-2013
The court was asked ‘Is it lawful for a Christian hotel keeper, who sincerely believes that sexual relations outside marriage are sinful, to refuse a double-bedded room to a same sex couple?’ The defendants (Mr and Mrs Bull) appealed against a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Commonwealth, Discrimination

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.540518

Langley v Bradford Metropolitan District Council and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: CA 15 Oct 2004

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.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Kennedy Lord Justice Sedley Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA (Civ) 1343, Times 11-Nov-2004

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal FromSecretary of State for Work and Pensions v M HL 8-Mar-2006
The respondent’s child lived with the estranged father for most of each week. She was obliged to contribute child support. She now lived with a woman, and complained that because her relationship was homosexual, she had been asked to pay more than . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Child Support, Discrimination

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.218841

Douglas and Others v Islington London Borough Council: EAT 23 Apr 2004

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.

Judges:

Rimer J, P R A Jacques, R A Vickers

Citations:

Times 27-May-2004

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970 1(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination

Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.198420

B R Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Town Fire Authority Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service the Secretary of State for the Home Department: EAT 29 Apr 2003

EAT Working Time Regulations

Judges:

His Hon Judge Birtles QC

Citations:

EAT/968/02

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See alsoMatthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others EAT 7-Aug-2003
. .

Cited by:

See alsoMatthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns Fire Authority and others EAT 7-Aug-2003
. .
At EAT (1)Matthews and others v Kent and Medway Towns and Fire Authority and others HL 1-Mar-2006
Retained or part-time firefighters sought parity of working conditions with full time firefighters.
Held: The retained firefighters’ appeal succeeded (Lords Carswell and Mance dissenting). The test was whether the part-time and full time . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185938

Lindsay v Ironsides Ray and Vials: EAT 27 Jan 1994

The industrial tribunal had refused the applicant an extension of time.
Held: The Tribunal mistook the law in holding that it could grant a review of its decision because the employee’s case had not been properly argued at the preliminary hearing as a result of her representative’s shortcomings. It would not be in the interests of justice for there to be a review on such grounds. Even though the ‘interests of justice’ ground for review is in very wide terms, it must be cautiously exercised. Failings of a representative will not generally constitute a ground for review because that would risk encouraging disappointed applicants to seek to re-argue cases by blaming their representatives.
Resort to this ground of review should be limited to cases of: ‘a ‘procedural mishap’ or ‘procedural shortcoming,’ or ‘procedural occurrence’ of a kind which constitutes a denial to a party of a fair and proper opportunity to present a case.’ and ‘Failings of a party’s representatives, professional or otherwise, will not generally constitute a ground for review. That is a dangerous path to follow. It involves the risk of encouraging a disappointed applicant to seek to reargue his case by blaming his representative for the failure of his claim. That may involve the tribunal in inappropriate investigations into the competence of the representative who is not present at or represented at the review. If there is a justified complaint against the representative, that may be the subject of other proceedings and procedure. It is thus our view that the industrial tribunal erred in law in granting a review under rule 10(1)(e) of the Rules of Procedure of 1985.’

Judges:

Mummery P

Citations:

Times 27-Jan-1994, [1994] IRLR 318, [1994] ICR 384

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1968 68(1), Industrial Tribunals (Rules of Procedure) Regulations 1985

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedFlint v Eastern Electricity Board EAT 1975
The employee had failed to mention at the hearing of his claim for a redundancy payment a fact which was arguably highly material to the issue of whether his refusal of alternative employment was reasonable; and his claim had been dismissed. He . .
CitedTrimble v Supertravel Ltd EAT 1982
The Industrial Tribunal had held that the appellant’s dismissal was unfair but then decided that she had failed to mitigate her loss. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Tribunal announced its decision and stated that she was to get no . .

Cited by:

CitedStanley Cole (Wainfleet) Ltd v Sheridan CA 25-Jul-2003
The employment tribunal, in delivering its judgment had cited a decision which was not among those referred to by the parties, but it did not give an opportunity to them to comment on it before delivering its decision.
Held: Such an ommission . .
CitedSodexho Ltd v Gibbons EAT 14-Jul-2005
EAT Deposit ordered. Order lost in post due to the Claimant putting wrong post-code on ET1. Review. Distinguishing Judgments from Orders. Strike-out. Extending time. . .
CitedCouncil of The City of Newcastle Upon Tyne v Marsden (Rev 1) EAT 23-Jan-2010
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Review
Claim under Disability Discrimination Act 1995 dismissed at PHR because Claimant not available to give evidence as to long-term effect of injury – Judge willing to offer . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.185968

Hounga v Allen and Another: SC 30 Jul 2014

The appellant, of Nigerian origin had been brought here at the age of 14 with false identity papers, and was put to work caring for the respondent’s children. In 2008 she was dismissed and ejected from the house. She brought proceedings alleging racial discrimination, but the only element of her claim which succeeded was of unfair dismissal, rejecting others saying that it had no jurisdiction. The defendants argued that the contract was unlawful, asking the Court: ‘In what circumstances should the defence of illegality defeat a complaint by an employee that an employer has discriminated against him by dismissing him contrary to section 4(2)(c) of the Race Relations Act 1976? ‘
Held: The claimant’s appeal was allowed. The defence of illegality of the employment of an illegal immigrant did not operate to defeat a claim of the tort of discrimination.
Lord Wilson set out a definition of human trafficking: ‘The accepted international definition of trafficking is contained in the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (‘the Palermo Protocol’) signed in 2000 and ratified by the UK on 9 February 2006. Article 3 provides:
‘(a) ‘Trafficking in persons’ shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability . . for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, . . sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs;
(b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used;
(c) The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered ‘trafficking in persons’ even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article’.’
Lord Wilson said: ‘The defence of illegality rests upon the foundation of public policy. ‘The principle of public policy is this . . ‘ said Lord Mansfield by way of preface to his classic exposition of the defence in Holman v Johnson (1775) 1 Cowp 341, 343. ‘Rules which rest upon the foundation of public policy, not being rules which belong to the fixed or customary law, are capable, on proper occasion, of expansion or modification’: Maxim Nordenfelt Guns and Ammunition Co Nordenfelt [1893] 1 Ch 630, 661 (Bowen LJ). So it is necessary, first, to ask ‘What is the aspect of public policy which founds the defence?’ and, second, to ask ‘But is there another aspect of public policy to which application of the defence would run counter?”
Lord Hughes said: ‘When a court is considering whether illegality bars a civil claim, it is essentially focussing on the position of the claimant vis-a-vis the court from which she seeks relief. It is not primarily focusing on the relative merits of the claimant and the defendant. It is in the nature of illegality that, when it succeeds as a bar to a claim, the defendant is the unworthy beneficiary of an undeserved windfall. But this is not because the defendant has the merits on his side; it is because the law cannot support the claimant’s claim to relief. ‘
Lord Toulson’s concluded generally:
‘Looking behind the maxims, there are two broad discernible policy reasons for the common law doctrine of illegality as a defence to a civil claim. One is that a person should not be allowed to profit from his own wrongdoing. The other, linked, consideration is that the law should be coherent and not self-defeating, condoning illegality by giving with the left hand what it takes with the right hand.’
Lord Toulson set out how the courts should approach the question:
‘So how is the court to determine the matter if not by some mechanistic process? In answer to that question I would say that one cannot judge whether allowing a claim which is in some way tainted by illegality would be contrary to the public interest, because it would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system, without (a) considering the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed, (b) considering conversely any other relevant public policies which may be rendered ineffective or less effective by denial of the claim, and (c) keeping in mind the possibility of overkill unless the law is applied with a due sense of proportionality. We are, after all, in the area of public policy. That trio of necessary considerations can be found in the case law. . . The courts must obviously abide by the terms of any statute, but I conclude that it is right for a court which is considering the application of the common law doctrine of illegality to have regard to the policy factors involved and to the nature and circumstances of the illegal conduct in determining whether the public interest in preserving the integrity of the justice system should result in denial of the relief claimed. I put it in that way rather than whether the contract should be regarded as tainted by illegality, because the question is whether the relief claimed should be granted.’
Lord Toulson brought the elements together: ‘The essential rationale of the illegality doctrine is that it would be contrary to the public interest to enforce a claim if to do so would be harmful to the integrity of the legal system (or, possibly, certain aspects of public morality, the boundaries of which have never been made entirely clear and which do not arise for consideration in this case). In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary (a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, (b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and (c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts. Within that framework, various factors may be relevant, but it would be a mistake to suggest that the court is free to decide a case in an undisciplined way. The public interest is best served by a principled and transparent assessment of the considerations identified, rather by than the application of a formal approach capable of producing results which may appear arbitrary, unjust or disproportionate.’

Judges:

Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hughes

Citations:

[2014] UKSC 47, [2014] ICR 847, [2014] Eq LR 559, [2014] 4 All ER 595, [2014] 1 WLR 2889, [2014] IRLR 811, [2014] WLR(D) 353, UKSC 2012/0188

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC Summary, SC

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At EATAllen (Nee Aboyade-Cole) v Hounga and Another EAT 31-Mar-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – Fraud and illegality
The Claimant brought claims for unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid wages and unpaid holiday pay as well as racial discrimination arising out of her . .
At CAHounga v Allen and Another CA 15-May-2012
. .
CitedBoulter v Clark 1747
A party to an illegal prize fight who is damaged in the conflict cannot sue for assault . .
CitedNational Coal Board v England HL 1954
The plaintiff sought damages after being injured when a co-worker fired a shot. The employee however had himself coupled the detonator to the cable rather than leaving it to the shotfirer, and had his cimmitted a criminal offence. He had been found . .
CitedSaunders v Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
The parties had agreed for the sale and purchase of land and chattels, but had deliberately misdescribed the apportionment so as to reduce tax liability. The purchasers then brought an action for misrepresentation. The vendor replied that the action . .
CitedHoward v Shirlstar Container Transport Ltd CA 1990
The parties contracted for the recovery from Nigeria of an aircraft owned by the defendants which was being detained by the Nigerian authorities at Lagos. Under the contract, the plaintiff was entitled to recover a fee of andpound;25,000 if he . .
CitedCross v Kirkby CA 18-Feb-2000
The claimant was a hunt saboteur and the defendant a local farmer. The claimant shouted to the defendant ‘You’re fucking dead’ and jabbed him in the chest and throat with a broken baseball bat. In order to ward off further blows, the defendant . .
CitedHall v Woolston Hall Leisure Limited CA 23-May-2000
The fact that an employment contract was tainted with illegality of which the employee was aware, did not deprive the employee of the possibility of claiming rights which were due to her under a statute which created rights associated with but not . .
CitedEnfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne; Grace v BF Components Ltd EAT 25-Jul-2007
EAT Unfair dismissal – Exclusions including worker/jurisdiction
These two appeals consider the circumstances in which contracts will be considered illegal so as to preclude an employee from taking claims . .
CitedEnfield Technical Services Ltd v Payne and Another CA 22-Apr-2008
The appellant company appealed dismissal of their defence to a claim for unfair dismissal that the employment contract was tainted with illegality. The EAT had heard two cases with raised the question of the effect on unfair dismissal claims of . .
CitedV v Addey and Stanhope School CA 30-Jul-2004
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 . .
CitedHolman v Johnson 5-Jul-1775
ex turpi causa non oritur actio
A claim was made for the price of goods which the plaintiff sold to the defendant in Dunkirk, knowing that the defendant’s purpose was to smuggle the goods into England. The plaintiff was met with a defence of illegality.
Held: The defence . .
CitedHall v Hebert 29-Apr-1993
(Canadian Supreme Court) After they had been drinking heavily together, Mr Hebert, who owned a muscle car, allowed Mr Hall to drive it, including initially to give it a rolling start down a road on one side of which there was a steep slope. The car . .
CitedRegina v Lyons, Parnes, Ronson, Saunders HL 15-Nov-2002
The defendants had been convicted on evidence obtained from them by inspectors with statutory powers to require answers on pain of conviction. Subsequently the law changed to find such activity an infringement of a defendant’s human rights.
CitedRelaxion Group plc v Rhys-Harper; D’Souza v London Borough of Lambeth; Jones v 3M Healthcare Limited and three other actions HL 19-Jun-2003
The court considered whether discriminatory acts after the termination of employment were caught by the respective anti-discrimination Acts. The acts included a failure to give proper references. They pursued claims on the basis of victimisation . .
CitedSiliadin v France ECHR 26-Jul-2005
(French Text) A 15-year-old girl, had been brought from Togo to France and made to work for a family without pay for 15 hours a day. She had been held in servitude and required to perform forced labour
Held: France had violated article 4 by . .
CitedGray v Thames Trains and Others HL 17-Jun-2009
The claimant suffered psychiatric injury in a rail crash caused by the defendant’s negligence. Under this condition of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, the claimant had later gone on to kill another person, and he had been detained under section 41. . .
CitedRantsev v Cyprus And Russia ECHR 7-Jan-2010
A Russian woman, aged 20, had gone to work as an artiste in a cabaret in Cyprus. Three weeks later she was found dead in a street.
Held: The Court upheld her father’s complaint that Cyprus was in breach of article 4 in that its regime for the . .
CitedLM and Others v Regina; Regina v M(L), B(M) and G(D) CACD 21-Oct-2010
Each defendant appealed saying that being themselves the victims of people trafficking, the prosecutions had failed to take into account its obligations under the Convention.
Held: Prosecutors had ‘a three-stage exercise of judgment. The first . .
CitedCN v The United Kingdom ECHR 13-Nov-2012
The claimant said that having been raped repeatedly in Uganda, she had fled to England, where her passport was taken and she was forced to work and her earnings taken, and she was held captive. On escaping, her application for asylum was refused. . .
CitedL and Others v The Children’s Commissioner for England and Another CACD 21-Jun-2013
Even where it has been clearly established that a defendant had been trafficked that should not provide him with immunity from prosecution for a criminal offence. Lord Judge CJ explained that: ‘it has not, however, and could not have been argued . .

Cited by:

CitedReyes and Another v Al-Malki and Another CA 5-Feb-2015
The claimants wished to make employment law claims alleging, inter alia, that they had suffered racial discrimination and harassment, and had been paid less than the national minimum wage aganst the respondents. They had been assessed as having been . .
CitedLes Laboratoires Servier and Another v Apotex Inc and Others SC 29-Oct-2014
Ex turpi causa explained
The parties had disputed the validity a patent and the production of infringing preparations. The english patent had failed and damages were to be awarded, but a Canadian patent remained the defendant now challenged the calculation of damages for . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .
CitedTaiwo and Another v Olaigbe and Others SC 22-Jun-2016
The claimants had been brought here illegally to act as servants for the defendants. They were taken advantage of and abused. They made several claims, but now appealed against rejection of their claims for discrimination. The court was asked . .
CitedHenderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust CA 3-Aug-2018
Upon the allegedly negligent release of the claimant from mental health care, she had, while in the midst of a serious psychotic episode, derived from the schizophrenia, killed her mother and been convicted of manslaughter. She now sought damages in . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
CitedPatel v Mirza SC 20-Jul-2016
The claimant advanced funds to the respondent for him to invest in a bank of which the claimant had insider knowledge. In fact the defendant did not invest the funds, the knowledge was incorrect. The defendant however did not return the sums . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, Human Rights, Torts – Other

Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.535439