Dhamija v The Liberal Democrats In England

Dhamija v The Liberal Democrats In England

Paragraph 6 of the selection protocol was unlawful because it gave priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which is not a proportionate means of achieving the statutory purpose under section 104 of the Equality Act 2010. The relevant comparator group is the current incumbents in the elected body, and with only one incumbent (a woman), the protocol's measures could not be justified. Consequently, the application fails as the court cannot enforce an unlawful contractual provision.

Parties
Claimant/applicant: Dinesh Dhamija; Defendant/respondent: The Liberal Democrats in England
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judgment / Substantive Application Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Positive Action in Candidate Selection, Interpretation of Equality Act 2010 Section 104, Proportionality in Discrimination Law, Political Party Selection Protocols
Equality Law Election Law Contract Law Positive Action in Candidate Selection Interpretation of Equality Act 2010 Section 104 Proportionality in Discrimination Law Political Party Selection Protocols

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

Judgment / Substantive Application Determination

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 the removal of paragraph 6 constituted a breach of contract with the applicant

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 6 of the selection protocol was unlawful because it gave priority to one protected group (BAME) at the expense of others, which is not a proportionate means of achieving the statutory purpose under section 104 of the Equality Act 2010. The relevant comparator group is the current incumbents in the elected body, and with only one incumbent (a woman), the protocol's measures could not be justified. Consequently, the application fails as the court cannot enforce an unlawful contractual provision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed