Tyne And Wear Passenger Transport Executive v T/A Nexus & Ors (RACE DISCRIMINATION) [2017] UKEAT 0147_17_1130 (30 November 2017)

Tyne And Wear Passenger Transport Executive v T/A Nexus & Ors (RACE DISCRIMINATION) [2017] UKEAT 0147_17_1130 (30 November 2017)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to adequately explain its reasons for finding that the comment 'You're not right for me' was not made, particularly in light of inconsistent evidence; this failure undermined its analysis of the discrimination claim and the application of the burden of proof.

Citation
[2017] UKEAT 0147_17_1130
Parties
Appellant/claimant: John Edwards; First Respondent/employer: Home Lettings (Lettings Agency); Second Respondent/owner/director: Mr Peter Willis; Third Respondent/co Director: Ms Sarah Stewart
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with guidance.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Employment Dismissal
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Direct Discrimination Burden of Proof Employment Dismissal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Edwards

Appellant/claimant

Home Lettings (Lettings Agency)

First Respondent/employer

Mr Peter Willis

Second Respondent/owner/director

Ms Sarah Stewart

Third Respondent/co Director

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the comment 'You're not right for me' was not made by Mr Willis
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its approach to the burden of proof and assessment of discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for preferring the Respondent's evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to adequately explain its reasons for finding that the comment 'You're not right for me' was not made, particularly in light of inconsistent evidence; this failure undermined its analysis of the discrimination claim and the application of the burden of proof.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted to the same Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with guidance.

Orders

  • The Tribunal must reconsider whether the comment 'You're not right for me' was made, addressing all evidential inconsistencies.
  • The Tribunal must explain the consequences of its findings for the discrimination claim and apply the burden of proof as clarified in Ayodele v Citylink Ltd & Anor.