Gay v Sophos Plc (Age Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0452_10_1609 (16 September 2011)

Gay v Sophos Plc (Age Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0452_10_1609 (16 September 2011)

The Tribunal made positive findings that the appellant's age was not a factor in her dismissal or the failure to offer alternative employment; the reasons were her seniority, high remuneration, and poor relationship with a manager. Even if the burden of proof had shifted, the respondent discharged it. The Tribunal's findings were adequately reasoned and open to it on the evidence.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0452_10_1609
Parties
Appellant's Counsel: MS Susan Belgrave; Appellant's Solicitors: Ashfords LLP; Respondent's Counsel: MR Niran De Silva; Respondent's Solicitors: DLA Piper UK LLP
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Redundancy, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Redundancy Burden of Proof

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MS Susan Belgrave

Appellant's Counsel

Ashfords LLP

Appellant's Solicitors

MR Niran De Silva

Respondent's Counsel

DLA Piper UK LLP

Respondent's Solicitors

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal and failure to offer alternative employment constituted age discrimination under the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by not applying or referring to the burden of proof provisions
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's findings of fact were perverse or inadequately reasoned

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made positive findings that the appellant's age was not a factor in her dismissal or the failure to offer alternative employment; the reasons were her seniority, high remuneration, and poor relationship with a manager. Even if the burden of proof had shifted, the respondent discharged it. The Tribunal's findings were adequately reasoned and open to it on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed