London Borough Of Hackney & Anor v Fashola [1996] UKEAT 116_94_1201 (12 January 1996)

London Borough Of Hackney & Anor v Fashola [1996] UKEAT 116_94_1201 (12 January 1996)

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the requirement of less favourable treatment under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976; therefore, the finding of victimisation cannot stand. On the contribution issue, the Tribunal was entitled to reduce compensation by 100% due to Mr Fashola's gross misconduct, and there was no error of law in that assessment.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 116_94_1201
Parties
Appellant (eat/116/94), Respondent (eat/115/94): London Borough of Hackney; Respondent (eat/116/94), Appellant (eat/115/94): Mr Fashola
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeals / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Council's appeal allowed; Mr Fashola's appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Dismissal, Victimisation, Contributory Conduct, Race Discrimination
Employment Law Discrimination Law Unfair Dismissal Victimisation Contributory Conduct Race 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Hackney

Appellant (eat/116/94), Respondent (eat/115/94)

Mr Fashola

Respondent (eat/116/94), Appellant (eat/115/94)

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeals / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Fashola was victimised contrary to Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in reducing compensation by 100% for contributory conduct under Section 74(6) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by failing to address the requirement of less favourable treatment under Section 2 of the Race Relations Act 1976; therefore, the finding of victimisation cannot stand. On the contribution issue, the Tribunal was entitled to reduce compensation by 100% due to Mr Fashola's gross misconduct, and there was no error of law in that assessment.

Court Disposition

Council's appeal allowed; Mr Fashola's appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Complaint of victimisation dismissed.
  • Order of 100% reduction in compensation for unfair dismissal upheld.