Tabidi v British Broadcasting Corporation

Tabidi v British Broadcasting Corporation

The Tribunal did not err in its comparator analysis or in its finding that the Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was not because of his gender. The Tribunal's decision on liability disclosed no error of law. However, the Tribunal erred in its approach to costs by taking into account an impermissible consideration regarding the likelihood of the Respondent waiving costs if approached after disclosure. The costs order was therefore set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Khalid Tabidi; Respondent: British Broadcasting Corporation
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Liability appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed; no order as to costs in the Employment Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Costs Orders, Comparators in Discrimination Claims
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Sex Discrimination Direct Discrimination Burden of Proof Costs Orders Comparators in Discrimination Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khalid Tabidi

Appellant

British Broadcasting Corporation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (employment Discrimination) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its comparator analysis for direct sex discrimination under section 13 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in awarding costs against the Appellant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in its comparator analysis or in its finding that the Appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of direct sex discrimination. The Tribunal was entitled to conclude, on the evidence, that the decision not to appoint the Appellant was not because of his gender. The Tribunal's decision on liability disclosed no error of law. However, the Tribunal erred in its approach to costs by taking into account an impermissible consideration regarding the likelihood of the Respondent waiving costs if approached after disclosure. The costs order was therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Liability appeal dismissed; costs appeal allowed; no order as to costs in the Employment Tribunal.

Orders

  • The appeal on liability is dismissed.
  • The appeal on costs is allowed.