L Akester & Ors v Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Ltd & Ors

L Akester & Ors v Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Ltd & Ors

The Guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care did not take a narrower approach to 'clinical reasons' than the regulations, was non-binding, and did not instruct, cause, induce or knowingly help any indirect discrimination; Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 exempted liability for indirect discrimination (other than sex) where conduct was required by regulation; accordingly, the tribunal did not err in striking out the claims against the Secretary of State and DHSC.

Parties
Appellants: Ms L Akester and 126 others; First Respondents: Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Ltd and Others; Second Respondent: Secretary of State for Health and Social Care; Third Respondent: Department of Health and Social Care
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Indirect Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Covid 19 Regulations, Protected Characteristics, Liability Under Equality Act, Strike Out Applications
Employment Law Equality Law Indirect Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Covid 19 Regulations Protected Characteristics Liability Under Equality Act Strike Out Applications

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms L Akester and 126 others

Appellants

Burlington Care (Yorkshire) Ltd and Others

First Respondents

Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Second Respondent

Department of Health and Social Care

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Guidance issued by DHSC narrowed the meaning of 'clinical reasons' under Regulation 12(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether the Guidance instructed, caused, induced or aided indirect discrimination under sections 111 and 112 Equality Act 2010
  3. 3 Whether Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 exempted employers and government respondents from liability for indirect discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The Guidance issued by the Department of Health and Social Care did not take a narrower approach to 'clinical reasons' than the regulations, was non-binding, and did not instruct, cause, induce or knowingly help any indirect discrimination; Schedule 22 Equality Act 2010 exempted liability for indirect discrimination (other than sex) where conduct was required by regulation; accordingly, the tribunal did not err in striking out the claims against the Secretary of State and DHSC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claims against Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and Department of Health and Social Care struck out
  • No liability found under sections 111 or 112 Equality Act 2010