Tag: Discrimination

Elias, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence and Another: Admn 7 Jul 2005

Judges:

Elias J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1435 (Admin), [2006] 1 WLR 3213, [2005] IRLR 788, [2006] ACD 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Defence v Elias CA 10-Oct-2006
The claimant said that a scheme drawn by the defendant for compensating British civilians interned by the Japanese during the second world war was indirectly discriminatory on racial grounds by requiring a national origin link with the UK. She had . .
Cited – Lisa Smith, Regina (on the Application of) v South Norfolk Council Admn 10-Nov-2006
The claimant gypsies had bought and moved onto land in Norfolk and stayed there in breach of planning enforcement notices. The inspector upheld the notices, but advised the Council of the difficulties in finding sites and had stayed enforcement for . .
Cited – Mohammed, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 1-May-2007
In 2000, the defendant introduced a policy to make compensation payments for those British services personnel who had been imprisoned by the Japanese in the second world war. The appellant, a citizen of Pakistan had served in the Indian Army, was . .
Cited – Amnesty International v Ahmed EAT 13-Aug-2009
amnesty_ahmedEAT2009
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION – Direct discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Indirect discrimination
RACE DISCRIMINATION – Protected by s. 41
UNFAIR DISMISSAL – Constructive dismissal
Claimant, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Administrative, Discrimination

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228908

Ibrahim v Ethnic Minority Enterprise Centre and others: EAT 18 May 2005

EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs – Case management – Claim for disability discrimination and breach of contract. Preliminary hearing at which claimants’ solicitors found liable in expenses and pre hearing review fixed under Rule 7 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001. Claimant appealed against both determinations. Employment Appeal Tribunal held that award of expenses against claimant’s solicitor was incompetent but that the Employment Tribunal had not erred in determining that there should be a pre- hearing review.

Citations:

[2005] UKEAT 0073 – 04 – 1805, EATS/0073/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.227024

Johnson v Bank of England: EAT 10 Apr 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment
EAT Disability Discrimination – Less favourable treatment.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Mitting

Citations:

EAT/334/02, [2003] EAT 0334 – 02 – 1004, [2003] UKEAT 0334 – 02 – 1004

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.184358

Home Office v Collins: CA 19 May 2005

Disability discrimination and unfair dismissal.

Judges:

Pill LJ, May LJ, Ouseley J

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 598

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Aylott EAT 11-Mar-2009
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS
Extension of time: just and equitable
2002 Act and pre-action requirements
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
Disability related discrimination
Direct disability . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225006

Hoyland v Asda Stores Ltd: EAT 22 Feb 2005

EAT Equal Pay Act – Article 141 – Pro rata reduction of annual bonus for period of absence on ordinary maternity leave neither sex discrimination nor pregnancy-related detriment.

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Bean

Citations:

EATS/0058/04, [2005] UKEAT 0058 – 04 – 2202

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224695

Home Office v Bailey and others: CA 22 Mar 2005

Prison officers claimed awards for sex discrimination. The employer replied that the pools of comparators each contained members of either sex. The appellants sought to establish that any less favourable treatment of them in comparison with the comparators was genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex and which is a material difference. The Home Office did not accept that it was obliged by s. 1 (3) of the 1970 Act objectively to justify any such difference.
Held: Lord Justice Peter Gibson: ‘the ET is concerned to determine whether what on its face is a gender-neutral practice may be disguising the fact that female employees are being disadvantaged as compared with male employees to an extent that signifies that the disparity is prima facie attributable to a difference of sex. ‘ there was ‘no justification for the imposition of a high threshold for satisfying the test of prima facie discrimination. ‘ Lord Justice Waller: ‘where a difference in pay is established, and statistics seem to indicate a possibility of a disproportionate impact on women when looking at both the advantaged and disadvantaged groups as a whole, those statistics must provide sufficient evidence to get those carrying the burden over the hurdle of placing the onus on the employer to show that there were material factors which were not the difference in sex. ‘

Judges:

Peter Gibson LJ

Citations:

Times 08-Apr-2005, [2005] EWCA Civ 327

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Jul-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence
The EAT allowed an appeal by the Home Office from a decision of an Employment Tribunal which had determined as a preliminary issue that the Home Office was . .
Cited – Glasgow City Council and Others v Marshall and Others HL 8-Feb-2000
Although instructors in special schools, carried out work of a broadly similar nature to qualified teachers, and the majority were women, they were not entitled to an equality of pay clause, since there was no evidence of sex discrimination, and the . .
Cited – Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd CA 15-Apr-2003
The appellant challenged dismissal of her claim for equal pay. It had been rejected on the ground that the employer had shown a material factor justifying the difference in pay.
Held: Enderby establishes that the burden of proving sex . .
Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State For Employment Ex Parte Seymour-Smith and Another (No 2) HL 17-Feb-2000
Although fewer men were affected by the two year qualifying period before becoming entitled not to be dismissed unfairly, the difference was objectively justified by the need to encourage employers to take staff on, and was not directly derived from . .
Cited – Barry v Midland Bank Plc HL 22-Jul-1999
The defendant implemented a voluntary retirement scheme under which benefits were calculated according to the period of service of the employee. The plaintiff claimed that the scheme discriminated against workers who had taken career breaks, and . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Home Office v A Bailey and others EAT 2-Nov-2005
EAT Practice and Procedure: Permission to Appeal Further and Costs
Test for granting/refusing permission to appeal. Whether power to make partial order for costs. . .
Cited – South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council v Anderson and others EAT 26-Mar-2007
The council appealed a finding that there was no genuine material factor justifying a difference in pay, and in particular the availability of bonus schemes. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Prisons, Discrimination

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223778

Wheeler v Sungard Sherwood Systems Group Ltd: EAT 18 Oct 2004

EAT Disability Discrimination – Justification

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

UKEAT/0459/04, [2004] UKEAT 0459 – 04 – 1511

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mid-Staffordshire General Hospitals NHS Trust v Cambridge EAT 4-Mar-2003
EAT The claimant had presented claims of sex and disability discrimination and victimisation. She suffered injury to her throat when builders demolished a wall near her workstation.
Held: The employer’s . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219846

Williams v Home Office: EAT 11 Oct 2004

EAT Race discrimination in respect of payment while off work sick, and upon a phased return to work. It is open to a Tribunal to disbelieve a manager and find the Respondent liable for one act of discrimination and yet find him/ it not responsible for a second alleged act. Employment Tribunal decision upheld.
Directions given for remedy hearing. Settlement/ conciliation encouraged.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT UKEAT – 0525 – 1110, [2004] UKEAT – 0525 – 1110, UKEAT/0525/04

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219848

Culshaw v Eldonian Group Ltd: EAT 30 Sep 2004

EAT Maternity Rights and Parental Leave – Sex discrimination – No error in ET majority (Chairman dissenting) finding that as a matter of fact the treatment of the Applicant was not related to her pregnancy or maternity leave.

Judges:

His Honour Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0272 – 04 – 3009, UKEAT/0272/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219735

Sadler v Portsmouth Publishing and Printing Ltd: EAT 22 Sep 2004

EAT Sex Discrimination – Other losses – Sex discrimination – compensation. Deductions because of pre-existing condition and chance of further illness in any event

Judges:

His Honour Judge Ansell

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0280 – 04 – 1510, UKEAT/0280/04

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Damages

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219097

Asselman (Nee Coxon) v Rank Xerox UK Ltd: CA 1 Jul 2002

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 971

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – J Coxon (Now Asselman) v Rank Xerox UK Ltd EAT 7-Mar-2002
EAT Sex Discrimination – Indirect . .
See Also – Coxon (Aka Asselman) v Rank Xerox (UK) Ltd CA 11-Oct-2001
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Coxon v Rank Xerox Ltd EAT 4-Oct-2002
EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct
The applicant appealed a finding that she had been fairly dismissed from her employment for gross misconduct.
Held: There was a clear distinction between a finding of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.217351

Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium: CA 30 Jul 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1246

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium EAT 26-Mar-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Victimisation. . .
Cited – Dr Anya v University of Oxford and Another CA 22-Mar-2001
Discrimination – History of interactions relevant
When a tribunal considered whether the motive for an act was discriminatory, it should look not just at the act, but should make allowance for earlier acts which might throw more light on the act in question. The Tribunal should assess the totality . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215987

Swithland Motors Plc v Clarke and others: EAT 14 Jul 1993

There could be no act of discrimination under the Section 6(1)(c) of the 1975 Act in omitting to offer employment until the person allegedly responsible for the omission was in a position to offer such employment.

Judges:

Hull J QC

Citations:

[1993] UKEAT 329 – 92 – 1407, [1994] ICR 231

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975 6(1)

Cited by:

Cited – Cast 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.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.210720

James v Bank of England: EAT 13 Apr 1994

Citations:

[1994] UKEAT 226 – 94 – 1304

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Mallalieu v Drummond HL 27-Jul-1983
The taxpayer was a barrister. To comply with Bar guidance on court dress, she wore, in court and in and to and from chambers black dresses, suits and shoes and white blouses. The clothing were perfectly ordinary articles suitable for everyday wear. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 19 June 2022; Ref: scu.209838

Caruana v Manchester Airport Plc: EAT 14 Nov 1995

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 687 – 94 – 1411

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Caruana v Manchester Airport Plc EAT 12-Sep-1996
It was sex discrimination for an employer to fail to renew a short term contract because of the pregnancy of the worker. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209465

Tyldesley v TML Plastics Ltd: EAT 23 Mar 1995

Mrs Tyldesley complained that she had been paid less than a male comparator. The employer said the reason for this was that the comparator understood and was committed to the concept of total quality management. The tribunal had found that in relying on a s.1(3) defence the employer had to show, in addition to their being a variation genuinely due to a material factor which was not the difference in sex, the difference was objectively justified.
Held: The claimant’s appeal succeeded. It was not necessary in order to establish the defence to show objective justification unless the factor relied on was one which affected a considerably higher proportion of women than men, so as to be indirectly discriminatory and thus tainted by sex discrimination. Thus, it followed that it was sufficient if the employer genuinely believed (even if mistaken and even if the belief was not reasonable) that the factor was material: ‘the industrial tribunal erred in law in directing itself that the explanation for the difference in pay had to be objectively justified. It was sufficient in law that the explanation itself caused the difference or was a sufficient influence to be significant and relevant, whether or not that explanation was objectively justified.’

Judges:

Mummery J

Citations:

[1995] UKEAT 1044 – 93 – 2303, [1996] IRLR 395

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Sharp v Caledonia Group Services Ltd EAT 1-Nov-2005
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence – In an equal pay claim involving a presumption of direct discrimination the genuine material factor defence requires justification by objective criteria.
The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.209035

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 9 Jul 1997

Judges:

Kirkwood J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 772 – 97 – 0907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 29-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207592

London Underground Ltd v Edwards: EAT 13 Jan 1997

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1997] UKEAT 16 – 96 – 1301

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Underground Ltd v Edwards EAT 14-Feb-1995
The Tribunal considered the difficulties arising where one party was not represented, but where the case gave rise to difficult questions of law. In this case the claimant alleged sex discrimination in the context of rostering arrangements making . .

Cited by:

At EAT – London Underground Limited v Edwards (2) CA 21-May-1998
New rosters for underground train drivers were indirectly discriminatory because all the men could comply with them but not all the women could do so: it was a ‘striking fact’ that not a single man was disadvantaged despite the overwhelming . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 18 June 2022; Ref: scu.207126

Ministry of Defence v Bloomfield-Evans: EAT 9 Oct 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1108 – 98 – 0910

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

See Also – The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT 23-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .

Cited by:

See Also – The Ministry of Defence v C Bloomfield-Evans EAT 23-Mar-2001
EAT Sex Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206794

Evesham v North Hertfordshire Health Authority and Another: EAT 2 Sep 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1354 – 97 – 0209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority and Another ECJ 27-Oct-1993
Discrimination – Shifting Burden of Proof
(Preliminary Ruling) A woman was employed as a speech therapist by the health authority. She complained of sex discrimination saying that at her level of seniority within the NHS, members of her profession which was overwhelmingly a female . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206673

O’Shea Construction Ltd v Bassi: EAT 21 May 1998

Judges:

Lindsay J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1366 – 97 – 2105, [1998] ICR 1130

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Bassi v O’Shea Construction Ltd EAT 3-Feb-1999
. .
Cited – SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland) HL 1-Jul-2009
The claimant suffered a condition which would lead to the development of vocal nodules unless she followed a program which would allow her to avoid raising her voice. She said that employer should not have placed her within a noisy environment. The . .
Cited – SCA Packaging Ltd v Boyle (Northern Ireland) HL 1-Jul-2009
The claimant suffered a condition which would lead to the development of vocal nodules unless she followed a program which would allow her to avoid raising her voice. She said that employer should not have placed her within a noisy environment. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206405

Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others: EAT 1 May 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1111 – 97 – 0105

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and others EAT 16-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others EAT 27-Feb-1998
. .
Cited – Walker v Northumberland County Council QBD 16-Nov-1994
The plaintiff was a manager within the social services department. He suffered a mental breakdown in 1986, and had four months off work. His employers had refused to provide the increased support he requested. He had returned to work, but again, did . .

Cited by:

See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and others EAT 23-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospitals and others CA 10-Jul-2001
. .
See Also – Mensah v West Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust and Another EAT 18-Jun-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 17 June 2022; Ref: scu.206396

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: EAT 20 Feb 1998

Judges:

Morison P J

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 311 – 98 – 2002

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 29-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206083

Ayobiojo v Nalgo-Unison Trade Union: EAT 16 Jan 1998

Citations:

[1998] UKEAT 1264 – 96 – 1601

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Ayobiojo v Nalgo/Unison Trade Union CA 20-May-1998
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.206016

Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest and others: EAT 1 Dec 1999

EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/986/99, [1999] UKEAT 986 – 99 – 0112

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Omilaju v Waltham Forest and others EAT 23-Apr-1999
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest and others EAT 30-Apr-2003
. .
See Also – Omilaju v London Borough of Waltham Forest EAT 31-Mar-2004
EAT Unfair Dismissal
Constructive Dismissal
A novel point on whether the ‘last straw’ in a constructive dismissal case has to involve at least some blameworthy or unreasonable conduct by the employer – . .
See Also – London Borough of Waltham Forest v Omilaju CA 11-Nov-2004
Final Straw Act – Non-Trivial
The claimant had been involved in protracted disputes with the respondent. The respondent appealed a finding of constructive dismissal and victimisation. He had attended a tribunal hearing and the employer had refused to pay his salary whilst he was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.205992

El’Abed v British Broadcasting Corporation: EAT 14 Dec 1999

Appeal by Mr Elabed against the decision of the Employment Tribunal that his complaints of race discrimination against the British Broadcasting Corporation [‘BBC’] failed and were dismissed.

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 1335 – 98 – 1412

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.205956

Shand v Leicestershire County Council and Another: EAT 12 Nov 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 9 – 99 – 1211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Shand v Leicestershire County Council and Another CA 26-Jan-2000
. .
See Also – Shand v Leicestershire County Council and others EAT 3-Mar-1999
. .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Shand v Leicestershire County Council and Another CA 26-Jan-2000
. .
See Also – Shand v Leicestershire County Council and others EAT 3-Mar-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.205911

Hammersmith and Fulham and Another v Ezeonyim: EAT 2 Nov 1999

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 659 – 99 – 0211

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, G Alltimes v L Ezeonyim EAT 7-Jun-2000
EAT The claimant had succeeded in his claim for race discrimination. The employer appealed, saying the tribunal had misunderstood its harassment procedure so as to be wrong in law. The claimant complained of a . .

Cited by:

See Also – London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, G Alltimes v L Ezeonyim EAT 7-Jun-2000
EAT The claimant had succeeded in his claim for race discrimination. The employer appealed, saying the tribunal had misunderstood its harassment procedure so as to be wrong in law. The claimant complained of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 16 June 2022; Ref: scu.205864

Broudie and Another v Khan: EAT 21 Oct 1999

EAT Sex Discrimination – Direct

Judges:

The Honourable Mr Justice Lindsay (President)

Citations:

EAT/729/97, [1999] UKEAT 729 – 97 – 2110

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 15-Jan-1997
. .
See Also – Broudie and Another v Khan EAT 20-Apr-1999
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205682

Greenwood v British Airways Plc: EAT 17 Jun 1999

The tribunal considered a disability discrimination appeal.
Held: ‘In our judgment the tribunal fell into error by considering the question of disability only as at the date of the alleged discriminatory act. We are quite satisfied, as the Guidance makes clear, that the tribunal should consider the adverse effects of the applicant’s condition up to and including the industrial tribunal hearing. By disregarding its findings of fact as to the actual recurrence of the adverse effects of the applicant’s condition which led him to go off work by reason of depression on 16 August 1997 and to continue off work until the date of the tribunal hearing the tribunal’s approach was fatally flawed.’

Judges:

His Honour Judge Peter Clark

Citations:

[1999] UKEAT 867 – 98 – 1706, [1999] ICR 969

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Cited by:

Cited – Richmond Adult Community College v McDougall CA 17-Jan-2008
The claimant had been offered and had accepted a job subject to satisfactory health clearance. When that was not received her offer was withdrawn. She had suffered a condition which would affect her daily activities, but had recovered from that . .
Cited – East 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.205305

A Mckenzie v East Sussex County Council: EAT 4 May 2001

Citations:

[2001] UKEAT 1346 – 00 – 0405

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – A 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 . .

Cited by:

See Also – A 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203890

Oko-Jaja v Lewisham Borough of Lewisham: EAT 8 May 2001

The applicant had complained of disability discrimination, and failed. He had been ordered to pay a sum towards the costs of the respondent. He appealed that order. He had previously issued a complaint, and lost that complaint, being warned then of the possibility of such an order. This second complaint was of victimisation, but the decision makers knew nothing of his first complaint. His complaint was dismissed. The tribunal recognised the unreasonableness of his complaint, and the substantial cost to the respondent, and awarded pounds 250 costs. The respondent cross appealed, saying that the award should not have been so limited.
Held: In making that decision the tribunal had taken into account a suggestion that the appellant had had all relevant evidence available to him from an early stage. The nature of victimisation complaints is that they are difficult to prove, and it may often be proper for a complainant to rely upon the hope of cross examination.
EAT Procedural Issues – Employment Tribunal.

Judges:

Mrs Recorder Cox QC

Citations:

EAT/417/00, [2001] UKEAT 417 – 00 – 0805

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Statutes:

Employment Tribunals Constitution and Procedure Regulations 1993 Sch 1 r 12

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – M J Benyon and others v David Scadden and others EAT 14-Jun-1999
The tribunal had found that the claimants and their union had pursued their case, even though they recognised the weakness of the case, with the additional intention of persuading their employer to recognise their union, UNISON. Such behaviour was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Employment, Costs

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203899

Turner v Scope (A Registered Charity): EAT 18 Dec 2002

Appeal from rejection of claim for constructive unfair dismissal and of discrimination.

Judges:

Timothy Brennan QC Rec

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0071 – 02 – 1812

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah CA 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘detriment’ in discrimination law. Brightman LJ said: ‘I think a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the duty was in all the circumstances to his detriment.’
Lord Justice . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203346

Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council: EAT 8 Nov 2002

race discrimination and disability discrimination in recruitment.

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0762 – 02 – 0811

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council 0415 EAT 15-Aug-2003
Two preliminary hearings in relation to a decision and a refusal to review of an Employment Tribunal which unanimously decided that the Applicant’s claim for racial discrimination was dismissed on the grounds of jurisdiction and specifically on the . .
Cited – Sahota v Wolverhampton City Council (0414) EAT 15-Aug-2003
Claimant’s application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claims for disability and race discrimination.
Held: rejected. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203256

Dime v Brent, Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster Mental Health NHS Trust: EAT 6 Nov 2002

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 0806 – 02 – 0611

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 14 June 2022; Ref: scu.203207

Gbokoyi v Bennett’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd: EAT 18 Jan 2002

The claimant appealed against dismissal of her unfair dismissal and of her maternity related discrimination claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it does not appear that the tribunal gave any separate consideration to whether the pregnancy was an effective cause of the adverse treatment of Mrs Gbokoyi and, insofar as it relied on the reasons which it had set out for rejecting the unfair dismissal claim, those reasons were flawed.’

Judges:

Mr Recorder Burke QC

Citations:

[2002] UKEAT 1282 – 00 – 1801, EAT/1282/00

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Leave – Gbokoyi v Bennette’s Eco-Inverter (Environmental Services) Ltd EAT 22-Mar-2001
Preliminary hearing – leave to appeal granted . .
Cited – King v Great Britain China Centre CA 1991
The court considered the nature of evidence which will be available to tribunals considering a race discrimination claim.
Held: A complainant must prove his or her case on the balance of probabilities, but it is unusual to find direct evidence . .
Cited – Webb v EMO Air Cargo (UK) Ltd (No 2) HL 20-Oct-1995
The applicant complained that she was dismissed when her employers learned that she was pregnant.
Held: 1(1) (a) and 5(3) of the 1975 Act were to be interpreted as meaning that where a woman had been engaged for an indefinite period, the fact . .
Cited – O’Neill v Symm and Co Ltd EAT 10-Jun-1998
An employer dismissing an employee for sickness absences, and who was unaware that the sickness had come to be a disability, did not discriminate under the Act. The reason for the dismissal was to be looked for in the mind of the employer. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202426

Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire: EAT 16 Jan 2004

EAT ‘This case concerns the correct test to be applied when an allegation of victimisation is made under the Race Relations Act; and the correct approach to handling a series of allegations of race discrimination said to constitute a single regime of discrimination.’

Citations:

UKEAT/445/02, [2004] UKEAT 0445 – 02 – 1601

Links:

Bailii, Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.202421

Rajendra Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and others: CA 8 Nov 2001

Application for leave to appeal.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1761

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Race Relations Act 1976 68(6)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Rajendra Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and others CA 8-Nov-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Rajendra Chaudhary v Royal College of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland and others CA 8-Nov-2001
Application for leave to appeal. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Health Professions

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201478

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 5 Nov 2001

Leave to appeal refused.

Judges:

Keene LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1719

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 29-Jan-2001
Renewed application for permission to appeal. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201458

Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personell: CA 4 Dec 2001

Failure to give proper reference. ECJ judgment giving right to make complaint only if cause was result of complaint over health and safety matters.
Held: The appeal failed. The section did not protect former workers: ‘section 44 does not, on its proper construction, apply in the circumstances relied upon by Mr Fadipe. The section is in the part of the Act that affords protection from suffering detriment in employment. Its purpose is to protect employees while they are still employed from suffering detriment, short of dismissal, by reason of having brought to their employer’s attention health and safety matters of the kind referred to in section 44(1)(c). If it is a dismissal case the section does not apply: see section 44(4). ‘ Nor was it possible now to raise issues not pleaded before the tribunal.

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1885, [2005] ICR 1760

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive on the introduction of measures to encourage improvement in the safety and health of workers at work, 89/391/EEC, Employment Rights Act 1996 44

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Fadipe v Reed Nursing Personnel CA 19-Feb-2001
Failure to give proper reference for former employee. . .
Cited – Coote v Granada Hospitality Ltd ECJ 22-Sep-1998
coote_granadaECJ1998
The employer had refused to provide a reference after the claimant had left the company after making a sex discrimination claim. She said this was victimisation.
Held: The state has a duty to protect workers against retaliation after . .
Cited – Kumchyk v Derby County Council EAT 1978
The appellant sought to advance an argument that a certain term was implied into the contract of employment which, for its consideration, would have required consideration of a factual framework which had not been explored in evidence.
Held: . .

Cited by:

Cited – Woodward v Abbey National Plc CA 22-Jun-2006
The claimant appealed refusal to award damages after an alleged failure to give a proper reference, saying that the decision in Fadipe could not stand with the later decision in Rhys-Harper. She said that she had suffered victimisation after making . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 13 June 2022; Ref: scu.201554

Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd: CA 3 May 2001

Application for leave to appeal – refused.

Judges:

Keene LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 697

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 23-Jun-2000
. .
Appeal from – William Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 7-Dec-2000
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Cited – Owusu v London Fire and Civil Defence Authority EAT 1-Mar-1995
The employee complained of his employer’s repeated failure to regrade him, and alleged discrimination. The employer said his claim was out of time.
Held: Mummery J made the distinction between single acts of discrimination, and continuing . .

Cited by:

See Also – Jack v Pinkerton Security Services Ltd EAT 16-Apr-2002
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.201058

Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 29 Jan 2001

Renewed application for permission to appeal.

Judges:

Mummery LJ

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 74

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 9-Jul-1997
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 20-Feb-1998
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 15-Jul-1999
. .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 12-May-2000
. .

Cited by:

See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc EAT 30-Apr-2001
Preliminary hearing on appeal – application for adjournment. Dismissed on papers. . .
See Also – Abegaze v British Telecommunications Plc CA 5-Nov-2001
Leave to appeal refused. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200717

J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd: EAT 19 Jun 1981

The claimant worked part time. She said that she should have been paid at the same rate as her male full time equivalents, the failure being incompatible with her rights under Article 119.
Held: The scope of Article 119 EEC covers not only direct but also indirect discrimination. The difference between part-time and full-time work is by itself ‘a material difference’ for the purposes of Section 1(3). The decision of the European Court of Justice clearly establishes that a differential in pay cannot be justified simply by showing that the women are part-time workers, and, where the circumstances are such that part-time workers are wholly or mainly women, an employer cannot justify paying less for like work to a part-time woman than to a full-time man by simply relying on the fact that the woman is a part-time employee.

Judges:

Browne-Wilkinson J P

Citations:

[1981] 1 WLR 1485, [1981] ICR 715, [1981] UKEAT 145 – 79 – 1906, [1981] 2 CMLR 24, [1981] IRLR 228, [1981] ECR 911

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Equal Pay Act 1970, EEC Treaty 119

Citing:

Cited – J P Jenkins v Kingsgate (Clothing Productions) Ltd ECJ 31-Mar-1981
ECJ The fact that work paid at time rates is remunerated at an hourly rate which varies according to the number of hours worked per week does not offend against the principle of equal pay laid down in article 119 . .

Cited by:

Mentioned – Pickstone v Freemans Plc HL 30-Jun-1988
The claimant sought equal pay with other, male, warehouse operatives who were doing work of equal value but for more money. The Court of Appeal had held that since other men were also employed on the same terms both as to pay and work, her claim . .
Cited – E, Regina (on The Application of) v Governing Body of JFS and Another SC 16-Dec-2009
E complained that his exclusion from admission to the school had been racially discriminatory. The school applied an Orthodox Jewish religious test which did not count him as Jewish because of his family history.
Held: The school’s appeal . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Employment, Discrimination, European

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.200625

Foley v The United Kingdom: ECHR 22 Oct 2002

Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Pecuniary damage – claim rejected ; Non-pecuniary damage – financial award ; Costs and expenses partial award – Convention proceedings
The applicant alleged, in particular, that civil proceedings brought by him were not determined within a reasonable time.

Judges:

J-P Costa P

Citations:

39197/98, [2002] ECHR 687, (2003) 36 EHRR 15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Human Rights

Citing:

Appeal from – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Foley v Post Office; HSBC Bank Plc (Formerly Midland Bank Plc) v Madden CA 31-Jul-2000
When an Employment Tribunal looked at whether a dismissal was reasonable, the test related not to an assessment of what tribunal members would think or do, but rather whether to ask whether the employer’s response was within a ‘band or range of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.177456

Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School: EAT 28 Jul 2004

Judges:

His Hon Judge Mcmullen QC

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0820 – 03 – 2807, UKEAT/820/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School EAT 5-Jan-2004
EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence . .

Cited by:

See also – Miranda Jane Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School EAT 18-May-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.199683

(Un-named): SSCS 1 Oct 2003

The mother had challenged payments required of her by way of child support. The Secretary of State now appealed.
Held: The appeal was rejected: ‘a gay relationship can be a family for the purpose of [A]rticle 8’. There was no reason, in the context of child support legislation, to distinguish between families according to the sexual orientation of the partners. The purpose of the regulations was to determine the financial obligation of the absent parent, a matter on which his or her sexual orientation should have no bearing. Accordingly, the applicant’s situation was within the ambit of the right to respect for family life. The court rejected, however, the applicant’s argument that the situation also came within the ambit of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. As to Article 14, the Commissioner found that, in the context of child support payments, the applicant’s situation was analogous to that of an absent parent living with a heterosexual partner, who, all other things being equal, would have been required to pay around GBP 14 per week instead of almost GBP 47. The Government had not advanced any justification for treating the applicant differently and therefore the child support scheme violated the applicant’s Convention right under Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 8. Concerning the remedy, the Commissioner disagreed with the approach of the Appeals Tribunal. Instead, since the regulations defined the various terms used by the regulations ‘unless the context otherwise requires’, he considered that, with the entry into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000, the ‘context’ now included the absent parent’s Convention rights. Therefore, the definition of an unmarried couple (‘a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife’) did not apply in this situation.

Citations:

[2003] UKSSCSC CCS – 1153 – 2003

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights, Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 1(2)

Cited by:

Appeal from – Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v M CA 15-Oct-2004
M had challenged the Child Support Regulations saying that they discriminated against her. She was the liable parent, and in a monogomoud lesbian relationship. As such she said that she was treated worse than she would have been since the . .
At Commissioner – JM v United Kingdom ECHR 21-Nov-2008
. .
At Commissioner – JM v United Kingdom ECHR 28-Sep-2010
The applicant alleged that she had been the victim of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the assessment by the authorities of her financial liability under the regulations on child support. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Child Support

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.197368

Bhagwandeen v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago: PC 17 May 2004

Trinidad and Tobago – The Board was asked whether the Commissioner of Police (the Commissioner) had treated the appellant unequally and/or unfairly and had discriminated against him in refusing to recommend him for promotion from the rank of constable to that of corporal, contrary to section 4(b) and (d) of the Constitution.

Judges:

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell

Citations:

[2004] UKPC 21

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Commonwealth

Constitutional, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.197089

Ministry of Defence v Armstrong and Another: EAT 7 Apr 2004

The MOD (the Appellants) contend that the Employment Tribunal erred in law in holding, in a Decision promulgated on 17 September 2002 after a preliminary hearing, that they had not established a ‘material factor’ defence to the Respondents’ claims for equal pay, pursuant to the provisions of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome.

Judges:

Cox J

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] UKEAT 1239 – 02 – 0704, [2004] IRLR 672

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Employment, Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.196814

Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School: EAT 5 Jan 2004

EAT Equal Pay Act – Material factor defence

Judges:

His Hon Judge McMullen QC

Citations:

UKEAT/820/03, [2004] UKEAT 0820 – 03 – 0501

Links:

Bailii, EAT

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See also – Miranda Jane Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School EAT 18-May-2004
EAT Race Discrimination – Direct . .
See Also – Pallett v Pent Valley Foundation School EAT 28-Jul-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194449

Meade v Pugh and Another: QBD 5 Mar 2004

The claimant was a social work student. He attended a work experience placement, and challenged the report given by the defendants on that placement, saying it was discriminatory and defamatory. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The occasion was one of qualified privilege. The claimant had to establish malice to defeat that defence, and that had not been done. What matters was that there was no evidence that the defendants did not believe the report to be true.

Judges:

Tugendhat J

Citations:

[2004] EWHC 408 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sex Discrimination Act 1975, Race Relations Act 1976

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Adam v Ward HL 1917
The plaintiff, Major Adam MP, falsely attacked General Scobell in a speech in the House of Commons, thus bringing his charge into the national arena. The Army Council investigated the charge, rejected it and directed their secretary, Sir E Ward, the . .
Cited – Regina v Galbraith CCA 1981
Rejection of Submission of No Case to Answer
The defendant had faced a charge of affray. The court having rejected his submission of having no case to answer, he had made an exculpatory statement from the dock. He appealed against his conviction.
Held: Lord Lane LCJ said: ‘How then . .
Cited – Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd and others HL 28-Oct-1999
Fair Coment on Political Activities
The defendant newspaper had published articles wrongly accusing the claimant, the former Prime Minister of Ireland of duplicity. The paper now appealed, saying that it should have had available to it a defence of qualified privilege because of the . .
Cited – Alexander v Arts Council of Wales CA 9-Apr-2001
In a defamation action, where the judge considered that, taken at their highest, the allegations made by the claimant would be insufficient to establish the claim, he could grant summary judgment for the defence. If the judge considered that a . .
Cited – Kearns and Others v The General Council of the Bar CA 17-Mar-2003
The claimants had sought to recover from the General Council of the Bar damages for libel in a communication from the head of the Bar Council’s Professional Standards and Legal Services Department to all heads of chambers, their senior clerks and . .
Cited – Branson v Bower QBD 2001
The objective test for fair comment is whether it would be perverse for a jury to hold that the comments are not such that an honest person could express them in the light of the facts known by the Defendants at the date of publication. Hard-hitting . .
Cited – Horrocks v Lowe HL 1974
The plaintiff complained of an alleged slander spoken at a meeting of the Town Council. The council meeting was an occasion attracting qualified privilege. The judge at trial found that the councillor honestly believed that what he had said in the . .
Cited – Telnikoff v Matusevitch CA 1991
The court considered the element of malice in a defamation defence: ‘If a piece of evidence is equally consistent with malice and the absence of malice, it cannot as a matter of law provide evidence on which the jury could find malice. The judge . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Discrimination, Defamation

Updated: 10 June 2022; Ref: scu.194156

Lane Group Plc, North Somerset Council v Farmiloe: EAT 24 Nov 2003

EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments
EAT Disability Discrimination – Reasonable adjustments.

Judges:

His Hon Judge Clark

Citations:

[2004] UKEAT 0352 – 03 – 2201, UKEAT/352/03, UKEAT/357/03

Links:

Bailii, EATn

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Discrimination, Employment

Updated: 09 June 2022; Ref: scu.192671