Dhamija v The Liberal Democrats In England [2019] EWHC 1398 (QB) (24 April 2019)

Dhamija v The Liberal Democrats In England [2019] EWHC 1398 (QB) (24 April 2019)

Paragraph 6 of the protocol is unlawful because it gives priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which is not a proportionate means of achieving the purpose under section 104 Equality Act 2010. The relevant comparator is the current party representative in the elected body, and with only one incumbent (a woman), preferential measures for other groups cannot be justified.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1398 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Dinesh Dhamija; Defendant/respondent: The Liberal Democrats in England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Positive Action, Candidate Selection, Protected Characteristics, Section 104 Equality Act 2010, Proportionality, Unincorporated Association Contract
Equality Law Election Law Contract Law Positive Action Candidate Selection Protected Characteristics Section 104 Equality Act 2010 Proportionality +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dinesh Dhamija

Claimant/applicant

The Liberal Democrats in England

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 6 of the Liberal Democrats candidate selection protocol is lawful under section 104 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether removal of paragraph 6 constitutes breach of contract with the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6 of the protocol is unlawful because it gives priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which is not a proportionate means of achieving the purpose under section 104 Equality Act 2010. The relevant comparator is the current party representative in the elected body, and with only one incumbent (a woman), preferential measures for other groups cannot be justified.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed