Bird v Sylvester & Anor

Bird v Sylvester & Anor

The application for costs and settlement proposal by the first respondent did not amount to victimisation as a reasonable employee would not perceive detriment beyond honest and reasonable conduct; solicitors acting as advisers and conduits for their client do not aid an unlawful act under section 33 unless they actively promote or carry out the act.

Parties
Appellant: Bird; Respondent: Sylvester & Anr
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Strike Out Applications, Solicitor Liability, Costs Applications, Disciplinary Proceedings
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Strike Out Applications Solicitor Liability Costs Applications Disciplinary Proceedings

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bird

Appellant

Sylvester & Anr

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for costs and settlement proposal amounted to victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether solicitors can be liable for aiding unlawful acts under section 33 of the Race Relations Act 1976

Ratio Decidendi

The application for costs and settlement proposal by the first respondent did not amount to victimisation as a reasonable employee would not perceive detriment beyond honest and reasonable conduct; solicitors acting as advisers and conduits for their client do not aid an unlawful act under section 33 unless they actively promote or carry out the act.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • application refused