Arif v Baker & Ors [2026] EWCC 14 (02 April 2026)

Arif v Baker & Ors [2026] EWCC 14 (02 April 2026)

The Court found that while the Claimant was subjected to a series of acts by the Defendants, the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the acts were because of his race or religion or because he had done protected acts. The acts were not less favourable treatment compared to a hypothetical comparator. The claims of direct discrimination and victimisation failed. The Court also found that the claims relating to events before October 2018 were out of time and did not constitute a continuing act under s.118(6)(a) EqA. No remedies were awarded.

Citation
[2026] EWCC 14
Parties
Claimant: Mr Mohammed Arif; Defendant: Mr John Baker; Defendant: Mr Brian Letts; Defendant: Mr Suky Samra; Defendant (settled): The Conservative and Unionist Party
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Race and Religious Discrimination Claim Under Equality Act 2010 (eq A) / County Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Victimisation, Associations Under Equality Act, Jurisdiction of County Court, Continuing Act Doctrine, Remedies for Discrimination
Equality and Discrimination Law Civil Procedure Direct Discrimination Victimisation Associations Under Equality Act Jurisdiction of County Court Continuing Act Doctrine Remedies for Discrimination

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Mohammed Arif

Claimant

Mr John Baker

Defendant

Mr Brian Letts

Defendant

Mr Suky Samra

Defendant

The Conservative and Unionist Party

Defendant (settled)

Procedural Posture

Race and Religious Discrimination Claim Under Equality Act 2010 (eq A) / County Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants subjected the Claimant to direct race and/or religious discrimination under s.13 EqA
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants subjected the Claimant to victimisation under s.27 EqA
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants' acts were 'detriments' under s.101 EqA

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that while the Claimant was subjected to a series of acts by the Defendants, the evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the acts were because of his race or religion or because he had done protected acts. The acts were not less favourable treatment compared to a hypothetical comparator. The claims of direct discrimination and victimisation failed. The Court also found that the claims relating to events before October 2018 were out of time and did not constitute a continuing act under s.118(6)(a) EqA. No remedies were awarded.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed