Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium

Moyo v Tower Hamlets Consortium

The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal made no error of law in its approach to direct discrimination, properly directed itself on the law, and its findings of fact were supported by evidence. Where there was a difference in treatment and race, the employer's explanation was accepted. No point of law arose with a reasonable prospect of success.

Parties
Applicant: Florence Moyo; Respondent: Tower Hamlets Consortium
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Direct Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Findings of Fact
Employment Law Discrimination Law Direct Race Discrimination Victimisation Burden of Proof Findings of Fact

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Florence Moyo

Applicant

Tower Hamlets Consortium

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing the applicant's claim for direct race discrimination under section 1(1)(a) of the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were perverse or unsupported by evidence
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal properly directed itself on the law regarding direct discrimination and the drawing of inferences

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because the Employment Tribunal made no error of law in its approach to direct discrimination, properly directed itself on the law, and its findings of fact were supported by evidence. Where there was a difference in treatment and race, the employer's explanation was accepted. No point of law arose with a reasonable prospect of success.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Applicant to be provided with approved judgment at public expense