Hampshire Constabulary & Anor v Bullale [2012] EWHC 1549 (QB) (12 June 2012)

Hampshire Constabulary & Anor v Bullale [2012] EWHC 1549 (QB) (12 June 2012)

The claims against both defendants were dismissed because the claimant failed to establish a real prospect of proving less favourable treatment or that any such treatment was on racial grounds. The lower court erred by conflating the two questions and by relying on evidence that did not support the claim.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1549 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary; Appellant/defendant: South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust; Respondent/claimant: Jama Farah Bullale (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ali Farah Bullaleh)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Vicarious Liability
Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Racial Discrimination Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Vicarious Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary

Appellant/defendant

South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust

Appellant/defendant

Jama Farah Bullale (as Personal Representative of the Estate of Ali Farah Bullaleh)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim for racial discrimination against police and ambulance staff had a real prospect of success
  2. 2 Whether the lower court erred in refusing to strike out or grant summary judgment for the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claims against both defendants were dismissed because the claimant failed to establish a real prospect of proving less favourable treatment or that any such treatment was on racial grounds. The lower court erred by conflating the two questions and by relying on evidence that did not support the claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claims dismissed

Orders

  • Claims against both appellants dismissed