Williams v Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 1648 (27 July 2005)

Williams v Home Office [2005] EWCA Civ 1648 (27 July 2005)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to accept the employer's explanation regarding the phased return to work, and its decision was not perverse; the evidence did not establish that the employer's actions in relation to the phased return were motivated by race, and the high threshold for overturning the Tribunal's findings was not met.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 1648
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Sandra Williams; Defendant/respondent: Home Office
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Comparators in Discrimination Cases, Remedies in Discrimination Cases, Perversity Test in Appeals
Employment Law Discrimination Law Direct Race Discrimination Burden of Proof Comparators in Discrimination Cases Remedies in Discrimination Cases Perversity Test in Appeals

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Williams

Claimant/appellant

Home Office

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to extend full pay beyond 16 November 2001 constituted direct race discrimination against Mrs Williams
  2. 2 Whether the refusal to pay Mrs Williams full pay during her proposed phased return to work constituted direct race discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal's acceptance of the employer's explanation on the second issue was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to accept the employer's explanation regarding the phased return to work, and its decision was not perverse; the evidence did not establish that the employer's actions in relation to the phased return were motivated by race, and the high threshold for overturning the Tribunal's findings was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no error of law found in the Tribunal's findings; remedies hearing on the first issue remains outstanding.