Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium [2004] EWCA Civ 1246 (30 July 2004)

Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium [2004] EWCA Civ 1246 (30 July 2004)

The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal had properly directed itself in law, made findings of fact supported by evidence, and provided accepted non-discriminatory explanations for any differences in treatment. No error of law or reasonable prospect of success was found in the appeal on direct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1246
Parties
Applicant: Florence Moyo; Respondent: Tower Hamlets Consortium
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Comparators, Appeals Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Law Direct Race Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof Comparators Appeals Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Florence Moyo

Applicant

Tower Hamlets Consortium

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to Court of Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to direct race discrimination under section 1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal failed to consider that discrimination can be unconscious as well as conscious
  3. 3 Whether the findings of fact by the Tribunal were perverse or unsupported by evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal had properly directed itself in law, made findings of fact supported by evidence, and provided accepted non-discriminatory explanations for any differences in treatment. No error of law or reasonable prospect of success was found in the appeal on direct discrimination.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused
  • Applicant to be provided with approved judgment at public expense