Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd & Anor

Jessemey v Rowstock Ltd & Anor

Post-termination victimisation is proscribed by the Equality Act 2010. The omission of explicit prohibition is a drafting error, and the court is empowered to imply words to give effect to legislative intent and EU obligations.

Parties
Appellant: JESSEMEY; Respondent: ROWSTOCK LTD; Respondent: Mr Davis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Post Employment Discrimination, Statutory Interpretation, Drafting Error Correction

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JESSEMEY

Appellant

ROWSTOCK LTD

Respondent

Mr Davis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the Equality Act 2010 prohibits acts of victimisation against former employees
  2. 2 Whether post-employment victimisation is unlawful under UK law
  3. 3 Interpretation of section 108 of the Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

Post-termination victimisation is proscribed by the Equality Act 2010. The omission of explicit prohibition is a drafting error, and the court is empowered to imply words to give effect to legislative intent and EU obligations.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Victimisation claim succeeds
  • Case remitted to Employment Tribunal for assessment of compensation