Institute and Faculty of Actuaries v R Davda

Institute and Faculty of Actuaries v R Davda

The respondent did not subject the claimant to direct discrimination regarding the number of examination opportunities, as the treatment arose from arrangements of other bodies, not the respondent. The employment tribunal erred in its identification of treatment, comparator, and application of the James principle. The indirect discrimination finding was unsafe due to errors in comparator pool and factual premise. The aiding claim under s.112 and the indirect discrimination claim are to be remitted for redetermination. The cross-appeal on the Fellowship requirement fails.

Parties
Appellant on Liability Appeal, Respondent on Remedy Appeal: Institute and Faculty of Actuaries; Respondent on Liability Appeal, Appellant on Remedy Appeal: Mr Roopesh Davda
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed, certain claims remitted for rehearing
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Qualification Bodies, Remission, Comparators, Territorial Jurisdiction
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Race Discrimination Qualification Bodies Remission Comparators +1 more

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

Parties

Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Appellant on Liability Appeal, Respondent on Remedy Appeal

Mr Roopesh Davda

Respondent on Liability Appeal, Appellant on Remedy Appeal

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent subjected the claimant to direct race discrimination in the number of opportunities to pass examinations
  2. 2 Whether the respondent subjected the claimant to indirect race discrimination by offering only two sittings per annum while granting exemptions to IAI exams
  3. 3 Whether the respondent instructed, caused, induced or aided the IAI not to admit British nationals as students

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not subject the claimant to direct discrimination regarding the number of examination opportunities, as the treatment arose from arrangements of other bodies, not the respondent. The employment tribunal erred in its identification of treatment, comparator, and application of the James principle. The indirect discrimination finding was unsafe due to errors in comparator pool and factual premise. The aiding claim under s.112 and the indirect discrimination claim are to be remitted for redetermination. The cross-appeal on the Fellowship requirement fails.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, cross-appeal dismissed, certain claims remitted for rehearing

Orders

  • Paragraph 1 of the employment tribunal judgment set aside and substituted with a finding of no direct discrimination by the respondent in examination opportunities.
  • Paragraph 2 (indirect discrimination) set aside and remitted to a differently constituted employment tribunal.