Khan v. The Post Office [2000] UKEAT 1238_99_0905 (9 May 2000)
The Tribunal did not err in law in its approach to the evidence, the assessment of conspiracy and continuing acts, or in its findings regarding promotion and disclosure. The Tribunal considered the case as a whole and made findings within its jurisdiction. No error of law or fact was established.
- Citation
- [2000] UKEAT 1238_99_0905
- Parties
- Appellant: Applicant; Respondent: Respondents
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 09 May 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Tribunal Appeal / Preliminary Hearing – Ex Parte
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Continuing Acts, Disclosure of Documents
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Applicant
Appellant
Respondents
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Preliminary Hearing – Ex Parte
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to allegations of conspiracy and continuing acts of discrimination
- 2 Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself by adopting a fragmented approach rather than considering the cumulative effect of facts
- 3 Whether the Tribunal's findings regarding promotion and application for a job were perverse or unsupported by evidence
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal did not err in law in its approach to the evidence, the assessment of conspiracy and continuing acts, or in its findings regarding promotion and disclosure. The Tribunal considered the case as a whole and made findings within its jurisdiction. No error of law or fact was established.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment