Curley v Police Service Of Northern Ireland [2009] NICA 8 (18 February 2009)

Curley v Police Service Of Northern Ireland [2009] NICA 8 (18 February 2009)

The Tribunal erred by adopting an over-mechanistic approach, failing to consider the fundamental fact that the decision-maker did not know the respondent's religion prior to selection; thus, the inference of religious discrimination was not reasonably supported by the evidence.

Citation
[2009] NICA 8
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Kevin Curley; Respondent/appellant: The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; Respondent/appellant: Superintendent Middlemiss
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
18 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Fair Employment Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal's finding of religious discrimination overturned.
Legal Topics
Religious Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Selection Procedures, Sex Discrimination, Victimisation
Employment Law Equality Law Religious Discrimination Burden of Proof Selection Procedures Sex Discrimination Victimisation

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Curley

Claimant/respondent

The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Respondent/appellant

Superintendent Middlemiss

Respondent/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated From Fair Employment Tribunal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in deciding the appellants had not discharged the burden of proof under Article 38A of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's decision was perverse in law

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by adopting an over-mechanistic approach, failing to consider the fundamental fact that the decision-maker did not know the respondent's religion prior to selection; thus, the inference of religious discrimination was not reasonably supported by the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal's finding of religious discrimination overturned.

Orders

  • Tribunal's decision set aside
  • No finding of unlawful religious discrimination against appellants