Race discrimination; amendment; scope of the claim form. The EAT expressed the view that a claim of 'race discrimination' in a claim form was sufficient to incorporate any claim for race discrimination, such as claims for direct and indirect discrimination and victimisation. Subsequent authorities declined to follow the decision. It was doubted by the Court of Appeal in Ali v Office of National Statistics, which considered that Quarcoopome had incorrectly applied previous authorities and, per Maurice Kay LJ, had taken an indulgent view of what is required of a claimant in setting out a discrimination claim. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Disapproved by Ali v Office for National Statistics [2004] EWCA Civ 1363 (2004-10-21)
The Court of Appeal adopted Charles J's critique in Smith v Zeneca (Agrochemicals) Ltd [2000] ICR 800, and held that whether a claim form contains a claim is judged on the whole document [39].
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Race Discrimination; Victimisation; Causation. The House of Lords (as it then was) held that the 'reason why' test focuses on the conscious or subconscious influence of the protected characteristic on the decision-maker. Motive, whether benign or malicious, is irrelevant if the prohibited ground had a 'significant influence' on the outcome. [Summary not yet checked against the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; burden of proof; clarified the two-stage test for shifting the burden to the employer. [Summary checked against a practitioner text, not the judgment.]
Cited by
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; burden of proof; a difference in status and difference in treatment is not enough to shift the burden.
“The bare facts of a difference in status and a difference in treatment only indicate a possibility of discrimination. They are not, without more, sufficient material from which a tribunal “could conclude” that, on the balance of probabilities, the respondent had committed an unlawful act of discrimination.”Mummery LJ, at [56]
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Discrimination; burden of proof; the Supreme Court held that the two-stage burden of proof test is a tool, not a substitute for the tribunal's duty to find the facts and draw inferences.
“… it is important not to make too much of the role of the burden of proof provisions. They will require careful attention where there is room for doubt as to the facts necessary to establish discrimination. But they have nothing to offer where the tribunal is in a position to make positive findings on the evidence one way or the other.”Lord Hope, at [32]
Cited by
Cites
References found in the judgments’ text, with the number of paragraphs in which each case is mentioned. Not a classification: how a case was treated is recorded under Later history.
Race discrimination; illegality; immigration status; the defense of illegality did not defeat a claim for race discrimination where the public policy against trafficking outweighed the public policy against illegal contracts.