Greater Manchester Police v Bailey

Greater Manchester Police v Bailey

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal's findings that the termination of Bailey's secondment was due to the expiry of a special agreement and administrative reasons necessarily excluded the possibility that it was motivated by his race or by his having brought previous claims. The ET's findings on...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police; Respondent: Paul Bailey
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claims (c)-(f) dismissed; claim (g) remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted tribunal.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Police Misconduct Procedures
Employment Law Equality Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof Police Misconduct Procedures

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police

Appellant

Paul Bailey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the respondent's secondment constituted victimisation or direct racial discrimination under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the handling of the respondent's complaint by the Professional Standards Branch was discriminatory or victimising
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof and causation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal's findings that the termination of Bailey's secondment was due to the expiry of a special agreement and administrative reasons necessarily excluded the possibility that it was motivated by his race or by his having brought previous claims. The ET's findings on victimisation were inconsistent with its findings on discrimination and were based on an erroneous 'but for' analysis and misapplication of the burden of proof. The claims relating to the termination of secondment (c)-(f) were dismissed. The claim regarding the handling of the complaint (g) was remitted for reconsideration due to flaws in the ET's reasoning process.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claims (c)-(f) dismissed; claim (g) remitted for reconsideration by a differently constituted tribunal.

Orders

  • Claims (c)-(f) definitively dismissed; no remittal necessary for these heads.
  • Claim (g) (handling of complaint) remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for reconsideration.