Judicial proceedings immunity applies to all types of discrimination including victimisationParmer v East Leicester Medical Practice (Victimisation Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0490_10_0103 | |||
Helping You About Links Contact Site Info HOME | |||
|
26/04/2011 In this EAT case (HJ Underhill) the Claimant objected to alleged untruths in witness statements made by the respondent in an earlier case that he had brought concerning unfair dismissal and discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976. The Claimant sought to bring a case for victimisation citing in support Zaiwalla & Co v Walia [2002] IRLR 697 where judicial immunity did not apply and that the ratio in Heath v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police did not apply to victimisation claims. The EAT rejected these arguments and dismissed the claim. In Zaiwalla & Co v Walia [2002] IRLR 697 a trainee solicitor was subject to an intimidatory defence to her discrimination claim and was awarded aggravated damages. Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435 was cited by Underhill HJ whereby, "A witness enjoys absolute immunity from any action brought on the basis that his or her evidence is false or malicious or indeed careless, that the,"immunity extends not only to the witness’s actual evidence in the witness box but to the preparation of witness statements, even if the trial never takes place", and that, " The immunity is absolute and does not, where it applies, involve any exercise of discretion by the Court. It is extended as a matter of public policy in order to ensure that witnesses are able to give the evidence that they ought to give and thus to participate in the administration of justice without fear of being subjected to subsequent legal liability or harassment (see per Lord Hope at page 447 C-D, citing the speech of Lord Hoffmann in Taylor v Serious Fraud Office [1999] 2 AC 177)". The Court of Appeal in Heath v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] ICR 329 ruled that judicial proceedings immunity applies to discrimination claims as much as to common law claims e.g. defamation or negligence and that this is does not breach article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights or EU directives such as the Equal Treatment Directive. The Claimant's belief (relying on the European Court decision in Justice in Coote v Granada Hospitality Limited [1999] ICR 100 whereby the Equal Treatment Directive forbids employees to be discriminated against on the grounds of sex, and that victimisation must be prevented )that the above principles do not apply to claims of discrimination by way of victimisation was rejected by the EAT. |
|||
| Transcript of the judgement:- Parmer v East Leicester Medical Practice (Victimisation Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0490_10_0103 |
|
||
| 2010 An abused worker's unfair dismissal and race discrimination claim was refused for illegality - Allen (Nee Aboyade-Cole) v Hounga & Anor [2011] UKEAT 0326_10_3103 Pay protection may be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim provided that sums awarded don't result from past discrimination. - Audit Commission v Haq & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0123_10_1803 Provided a claimant does part of the work in the UK an ET may hear a race or age discrimination claim. - British Airways Plc v Mak & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 184 TUPE transfers apply where the transferor was in administration - OTG Ltd v. Barke & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0320_09_1602 The Court of Appeal limits the scope of employers to break strikes using interim injunctions - National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers v Serco Ltd (t/a Serco Docklands) [2011] EWCA Civ 226 Employment Tribunal Written Reasons must contain sufficient detail to understand the decision - Greenwood v. NWF Retail Ltd [2011] UKEAT/0409/09/JOJ Employer's justice - the worker had his hours cut and suffered racial discrimination yet the Court of Appeal finds his dismissal 'equitable' and 'fair' - Orr v Milton Keynes Council [2011] EWCA Civ 62 Failing to consider a reasonable offer of settlement or to make a counter offer can lead to an employment tribunal making a costs order. - G4S Services v Rondeau [2009] UKEAT 0207/09/DA Where an employee alleges unlawful conduct by his employer to his employer's own solicitor this is not defamatory. - Wallis & Anor v Meredith [2011] EWHC 75 (QB) Pay protection should have been extended to female staff (after withdrawal of bonuses to males)under the Equal Pay Act 1970 - Bury MBC v Hamilton and Sunderland City Council v Brennan [2011] UKEAT Under the RRA76 the employer was not vicariously liable for race discrimination by third party employees (the Equality Act 2010 section 40 changes this) - Conteh v. Parking Partners Ltd [2010] UKEAT 0288_10_1712 Discrimination against gay customers was also unlawful sex orientation discrimination against the claimant employee - Lisboa v. Realpubs Ltd & Ors [2011] UKEAT 0224_10_1101 Employment tribunal under no obligation to transfer unfair dismissal, racial discrimination, religious discrimination and sums due case to the tribunal nearest the workplace - Faleye & Anor v UK Mission Enterprise Ltd & Ors [2010] UKEAT 0359_10_0809 Contractual bonuses and pay in lieu of notice (PILON) - Locke v Candy and Candy Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1350 Where there is no unfair dismissal or otherwise termination of employment the tribunal may not consider breach of contract claims - Southern Cross Healthcare Co Ltd v Perkins & Ors [2010] EWCA Civ 1442 Trying to re-argue the facts at appeal on the grounds of bias or perversity is no easy task - Clarke v Zurich UK General Services Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1333 A distinction is made between treatment on the grounds of a person's beliefs and on the grounds of the manifestation of those beliefs - Power v. Greater Manchester Police Authority [2010] UKEAT 0087_10_0810 The "nature, gravity and effect" of misconduct must be taken into account when deciding whether to make (and if so the amount of) a costs award - Yerrakalva v. Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0231_10_0812 The effective date of termination does not change just because the employee has been allowed to leave early - South Manchester Abbeyfield Society Ltd v Hopkins & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0079_10_3011 Under the National Minimum Wage Act and National Minimum Wage Regulations workers may only claim for hours they are awake for the purpose of working. - South Manchester Abbeyfield Society Ltd v Hopkins & Anor [2010] UKEAT 0079_10_3011 When less favourable treatment amounting to a detriment follows a protected disclosure the employer must prove it was "in no sense whatsoever on the ground of the protected disclosure" - Fecitt & Ors v. NHS Manchester [2010] UKEAT 0150_10_2311 Establishing a contract of service and thence unfair dismissal remains a tall order for an agency worker - Tilson v Alstom Transport [2010] EWCA Civ 1308 The duty of fidelity and fiduciary obligations must remain separate and are in any case not imposed on employees; fidelity does not extend to reporting one's own or fellow employees' misconduct - Lonmar Global Risks Limited v West and Others [2010] EWHC 2878 (QB) Employers don't need to justify age discriminatory behaviour in terms of "legitimate social policy objectives" - Seldon v. Clarkson Wright & Jakes [2010] Court of Appeal A2/2009/0149 Those seeking to profit out of the discrimination legislation will face costs - Berry v. Recruitment Revolution [2010] UKEAT 0190_10_0610 Court of Appeal re-interprets clause of BA contract to avoid 'disastrous' consequences for the firm (the employees must work harder and more stressful shifts) - Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 EAT questions 'cost plus' approach to justification in discrimination - Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust [2010] UKEAT 0489_09_1211 Workers whose employment contract was made with a company that did not actually employ them are still entitled to TUPE protections upon transfer. The "Transferor" is the company in the group that they actually worked for - Albron Catering BV v FNV Bondgenoten C-242/09 Being incorrectly summarily dismissed for misconduct still amounted to a fair but wrongful dismissal - Weston Recovery Services v Fisher [2010] UKEAT 0062_10_0710 Not unfair dismissal despite having occurred during the protected consultation period contrary to s. 188 TULRCA s.188(8) - Hammonds LLP & Ors v Mwitta [2010] UKEAT 0026_10_0110 The Court of Appeal refers the timing of worker consultation under TUPE to the ECJ - United States of America v Nolan [2010] EWCA Civ 1223 A redundancy consultation means explaining the scoring to the employee and seriously considering his comments - Pinewood Repro Ltd v. Page [2010] UKEAT 0028_10_1310 |
|||
| If you have a problem at work over harassment, disability, sex, age, race discrimination or bullying or are seeking compensation or reinstatement for unfair or constructive dismissal then contact workrep for an evaluation of your case. We can also advise you on equal pay, TUPE or employment status. Often an employee will come to us over a breach of contract by their employer or for issues concerning whistleblowing. If your employer has made you redundant you might in fact have been unfairly dismissed or wrongfully dismissed. If you have any other employment issues don't hesitate to contact WorkRep. You do not need to accept being discriminated against harassed or victimised at work. If you are suffering from bullying victimisation or discrimination at work you need to contact WorkRep early on. Whatever your employment problem is, even if you have failed in your tribunal case and there is now a costs application against you we will try to help. click for further information about problems at work |
|||
|
© 2011 Workrep | |||