Tower Boot Company Limited v Jones: CA 11 Dec 1996

An employer’s liability for racial abuse by its employees is wider than its liability under the rules of vicarious liability. The statute created new obligations. Sex and race discrimination legislation seeks to eradicate the ‘very great evil’ of discrimination.
Waite LJ said: ‘a statute is to be construed according to its legislative purpose, with due regard to the result which it is the stated or presumed intention of Parliament to achieve and the means provided for achieving it (‘the purposive construction’) and the second is that words in a statute are to be given their normal meaning according to general use in the English language unless the context indicates that such words have to be given a special or technical meaning as a term of art (‘the linguistic construction’)’ and ‘The application of the phrase will be a question of fact for each industrial tribunal to resolve, in the light of the circumstances presented to it, with a mind unclouded by any parallels sought to be drawn from the law of vicarious liability in tort.’
Waite LJ
Times 16-Dec-1996, [1996] EWCA Civ 1185, [1997] ICR 254, [1997] IRLR 168, [1997] 2 All ER 406,
Bailii
Race Relations Act 1976 32(1) 33
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromTower Boot Company Ltd v Jones EAT 27-Mar-1995
The company appealed against a finding of race discrimination.
Held: As a matter of law the concept of vicarious liability provided for in Section 41(1) of the Act, identical to that under Section 32(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976. . .

Cited by:
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 . .
CitedLister and Others v Hesley Hall Ltd HL 3-May-2001
A school board employed staff to manage a residential school for vulnerable children. The staff committed sexual abuse of the children. The school denied vicarious liability for the acts of the teachers.
Held: ‘Vicarious liability is legal . .
CitedMajrowski v Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Trust CA 16-Mar-2005
The claimant had sought damages against his employer, saying that they had failed in their duty to him under the 1997 Act in failing to prevent harassment by a manager. He appealed a strike out of his claim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The . .
CitedAnyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another HL 24-May-2001
The university had imposed a new constitution on its students union, which resulted in the dismissal of the claimant. He sought to assert racial discrimination.
Held: The concept of ‘aiding’ somebody in committing discriminatory behaviour . .
CitedBNP Paribas v A Mezzotero EAT 30-Mar-2004
EAT Appeal from ET’s decision, at directions hearing, permitting evidence to be adduced, at the forthcoming hearing of a direct sex discrimination and victimisation complaint, of the Applicant’s allegation that, . .
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 . .
CitedAB v CD EAT 13-Nov-1997
The claimant had been a cook. A poster was put up at work redrawn to show her in a sexually suggestive pose. The court now considered an appeal agreed by consent by the parties.
Held: Since the case had been heard, the Court of Appeal in Tower . .
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 . .
CitedBungay and Others v Saini and Others EAT 27-Sep-2011
EAT RACE DISCRIMINATION
Vicarious liability
Post employment
The Appellants were members of the board of a Centre. As a result of decisions of the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.141053