Fox v Rangecroft & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1112 (13 July 2006)

Fox v Rangecroft & Anor [2006] EWCA Civ 1112 (13 July 2006)

The appeal failed because the claimant did not prove any primary facts from which the Tribunal could infer sex discrimination; therefore, the burden of proof under section 63A did not shift to the respondents, and the Tribunal's findings were within its jurisdiction and not vitiated by legal error.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1112
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Angela Fox; Defendant/respondent: Michael Rangecroft; Defendant/respondent: Elmbridge Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Burden of Proof Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angela Fox

Claimant/appellant

Michael Rangecroft

Defendant/respondent

Elmbridge Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal misapplied section 63A of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 regarding the burden of proof in discrimination claims
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to follow the Barton and Igen v Wong guidelines on the application of section 63A
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were unreliable due to alleged legal errors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the claimant did not prove any primary facts from which the Tribunal could infer sex discrimination; therefore, the burden of proof under section 63A did not shift to the respondents, and the Tribunal's findings were within its jurisdiction and not vitiated by legal error.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed