O'Connor v Bar Standards Board [2014] EWHC 4324 (QB) (18 December 2014)

O'Connor v Bar Standards Board [2014] EWHC 4324 (QB) (18 December 2014)

The particulars of claim adequately state a case of indirect discrimination under Article 14 ECHR by the BSB in bringing disciplinary proceedings, supported by statistical evidence, and are not fanciful. The Master's decision to strike out the Article 14 claim was wrong. However, the Article 6 claims and broader discrimination claims were properly struck out as they had no real prospect of success, were inadequately pleaded, or were time-barred.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4324 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Daphne Evadney Portia O'Connor; Defendant/respondent: Bar Standards Board
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Striking Out Statements of Case and Dismissing Action
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Article 14 claim reinstated; Article 6 and other claims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Article 6 ECHR, Article 14 ECHR, Indirect Discrimination, Limitation, Summary Judgment, Misfeasance in Public Office
Human Rights Discrimination Law Professional Regulation Article 6 ECHR Article 14 ECHR Indirect Discrimination Limitation Summary Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daphne Evadney Portia O'Connor

Claimant/appellant

Bar Standards Board

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Order Striking Out Statements of Case and Dismissing Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bar Standards Board breached the claimant's rights under Article 6 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclosed a reasonable basis for a claim of indirect discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the claims were time-barred under the Human Rights Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The particulars of claim adequately state a case of indirect discrimination under Article 14 ECHR by the BSB in bringing disciplinary proceedings, supported by statistical evidence, and are not fanciful. The Master's decision to strike out the Article 14 claim was wrong. However, the Article 6 claims and broader discrimination claims were properly struck out as they had no real prospect of success, were inadequately pleaded, or were time-barred.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Article 14 claim reinstated; Article 6 and other claims dismissed.

Orders

  • Article 14 claim to proceed to trial
  • Article 6 claims and broader discrimination claims struck out