Page v. Lord Chancellor & Anor (Rev 1) [2019] UKEAT 0304_18_1906 (19 June 2019)

Page v. Lord Chancellor & Anor (Rev 1) [2019] UKEAT 0304_18_1906 (19 June 2019)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant's disciplinary removal was not because of any protected act but because of separable features: his disregard of advice on media contact, the negative publicity bringing the judiciary into disrepute, and the apparent breach of judicial oath. The Claimant's statements during the BBC broadcast did not, in themselves, amount to a protected act, and even if some remarks did, the Respondents' reasons for removal were properly separable. Article 10 ECHR did not protect the Claimant's statements as they compromised judicial impartiality.

Citation
[2019] UKEAT 0304_18_1906
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Richard Page; Respondents: Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment on Victimisation Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Direct Discrimination, Judicial Conduct, Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr), Equality Act 2010, Protected Acts, Judicial Impartiality
Employment Law Equality and Discrimination Law Human Rights Law Victimisation Direct Discrimination Judicial Conduct Freedom of Expression (article 10 Echr) Equality Act 2010 +2 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

Claimant/appellant

Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment on Victimisation Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its application of section 27 Equality Act 2010 regarding victimisation
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal correctly identified and analysed what constituted a protected act
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal misapplied Martin v Devonshire on separability of reasons for disciplinary action

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the Claimant's disciplinary removal was not because of any protected act but because of separable features: his disregard of advice on media contact, the negative publicity bringing the judiciary into disrepute, and the apparent breach of judicial oath. The Claimant's statements during the BBC broadcast did not, in themselves, amount to a protected act, and even if some remarks did, the Respondents' reasons for removal were properly separable. Article 10 ECHR did not protect the Claimant's statements as they compromised judicial impartiality.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Claimant's appeal in respect of victimisation is dismissed.