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 was unlawful because it gave priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which was not a proportionate means of addressing under-representation under section 104 of the Equality Act 2010, given the current representation of the party in the European Parliament.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 1398
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 / Contract Claim / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Positive Action in Candidate Selection, Interpretation of Equality Act 2010 S.104, Proportionality in Discrimination Law, Unincorporated Association Membership Contracts
Equality Law Election Law Contract Law Positive Action in Candidate Selection Interpretation of Equality Act 2010 S.104 Proportionality in Discrimination Law Unincorporated Association Membership Contracts

Source-derived case record

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 / Contract Claim / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 6 of the Liberal Democrats' candidate selection protocol was lawful under section 104 of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether removal of paragraph 6 constituted a breach of contract with the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6 of the protocol was unlawful because it gave priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which was not a proportionate means of addressing under-representation under section 104 of the Equality Act 2010, given the current representation of the party in the European Parliament.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed