The claimant was a Pakistani member of the Labour Party. He had sought selection as parliamentary candidate, but allegations had been made about behaviour of members in the Pakistani community in his ward and the local party had been suspended. A candidate was deliberately chosen who was not a member of that community. The claimant alleged racial discrimination, and began an action in the employment tribunal. After the tribunal had accepted jurisdiction, a later decision indicated that jurisdiction should have been declined. Nevertheless the tribunal rejected his claim.
Held: The action should indeed have been brought in the County Court. Section 12 did not apply to the party as it was not awarding a qualification or authorisation. Section 24 however did apply. The decision not to select candidates of Paksistani origin was simple discrimination, of the same sort as not employng a black member of staff because ‘customers will not like it.’ The issue is not whether there is a good reason for discrimination, but whether there has been discrimination.
A decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal as to the existence of its own jurisdiction created an issue estoppel between the parties to it.
Judges:
Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Carswell, ord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2007] UKHL 51, Times 27-Nov-2007, [2008] 1 AC 696, [2008] ICR 82, [2008] 1 All ER 869, [2008] IRLR 243, [2008] 2 WLR 17
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – Tom Sawyer and All Other Members of the Labour Party v R Ahsan EAT 5-May-1999
EAT Race Discrimination – Jurisdiction . .
See Also – Sawyer and others v Ahsan EAT 14-Jul-1999
. .
At EAT – Carter (Formerly McDonagh (General Secretary of, and on Behalf the Labour Party v Ahsan EAT 11-Feb-2004
EAT Practice and Procedure – Appellate jurisdiction . .
Cited – Ali and Another v Triesman (McDonagh) CA 7-Feb-2002
The applicants sought selection as candidates for the Labour Party. The respondent asserted that such issues were not ones of employment, and therefore not covered by the Act, and appealed a finding of the EAT against them.
Held: Sawyer was . .
Appeal from – Ahsan v Carter CA 28-Jul-2005
The claimant sought to assert race discrimination by the Labour Party in not selecting him as a political candidate. The defendant, chairman of the party appealed.
Held: A political party when selecting candidates was not acting as a . .
Cited – Carter v Ahsan EAT 21-Jun-2004
The claimant alleged discrimination in the failure to select him as a candidate. As a Pakistani, he was excluded by a decision not to select such a candidate for this constituency after allegations (later shown false) had been made against that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Sugar v British Broadcasting Corporation and Another HL 11-Feb-2009
The Corporation had commissioned a report as to its coverage of Middle East issues. The claimant requested a copy, and the BBC refused saying that the report having been obtained for its own journalistic purposes, and that it was not covered by the . .
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 . .
Distinguished – Dallah Estates and Tourism Holding Company v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government Of Pakistan CA 20-Jul-2009
The claimant sought to enforce an international arbitration award against the defendant in respect of the provision of accommodation for Hajj pilgrims. A without notice order had been made to allow its enforcement, but that had been set aside.
Cited – Foster v Bon Groundwork Ltd EAT 17-Mar-2011
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Striking-out/dismissal
In April 2009, the Claimant, who was then 77 years of age, was employed by the Respondent, when he was laid off without pay. While still being employed by . .
Cited – DN (Rwanda), Regina (on The Application of) v Secretary of State for The Home Department SC 26-Feb-2020
Challenge to imprisonment pending deportation of successful asylum applicant on release from prison after conviction of an offence specified under the 2004 Order as a particularly serious crime.
Held: The appeal succeeded. ‘The giving of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Discrimination, Jurisdiction
Leading Case
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.261585
