Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255 (26 February 2021)

Page v NHS Trust Development Authority [2021] EWCA Civ 255 (26 February 2021)

The disciplinary action was not because of the appellant's religion or belief per se, but because of his public expression of those beliefs in a manner incompatible with his role and responsibilities as a Non-Executive Director, which risked undermining the Trust's ability to serve LGBT service users. The actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and did not constitute unlawful discrimination or victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, nor did they infringe the appellant's rights under Articles 9 or 10 ECHR.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 255
Parties
Appellant: Richard Page; Respondent: NHS Trust Development Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Direct Discrimination, Indirect Discrimination, Victimisation, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Expression, Proportionality, Protected Characteristics, Public Sector Equality Duty
Employment Law Equality and Anti Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Direct Discrimination Indirect Discrimination Victimisation Freedom of Religion Freedom of Expression +3 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Page

Appellant

NHS Trust Development Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disciplinary action against the appellant constituted direct or indirect discrimination or victimisation on grounds of religion or belief under the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's rights under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights were infringed
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary action was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim

Ratio Decidendi

The disciplinary action was not because of the appellant's religion or belief per se, but because of his public expression of those beliefs in a manner incompatible with his role and responsibilities as a Non-Executive Director, which risked undermining the Trust's ability to serve LGBT service users. The actions were a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim and did not constitute unlawful discrimination or victimisation under the Equality Act 2010, nor did they infringe the appellant's rights under Articles 9 or 10 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No unlawful discrimination or victimisation found
  • No breach of Articles 9 or 10 ECHR