Brighton Borough Council & Anor v Richards [1993] UKEAT 431_92_1407 (14 July 1993)

Brighton Borough Council & Anor v Richards [1993] UKEAT 431_92_1407 (14 July 1993)

The Tribunal was entitled to draw an inference of race discrimination from the Council's delay and evasiveness in responding to the race questionnaire, failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the selection decision, lack of monitoring of equal opportunities policy, and absence of notes on the selection process. The findings were not perverse. However, the Tribunal erred in not considering Mr Bishop's individual liability separately, and his name should be removed from the declaration of discrimination.

Citation
[1993] UKEAT 431_92_1407
Parties
Appellant: Brighton Borough Council; Appellant: Mr Bishop; Respondent: Ms Richards
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 July 1993
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal to Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Council's appeal dismissed; Mr Bishop's appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Equal Opportunities Policy, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Burden of Proof Equal Opportunities Policy Tribunal Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brighton Borough Council

Appellant

Mr Bishop

Appellant

Ms Richards

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal to Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal's finding of race discrimination was perverse
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal properly considered the individual liability of Mr Bishop

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to draw an inference of race discrimination from the Council's delay and evasiveness in responding to the race questionnaire, failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the selection decision, lack of monitoring of equal opportunities policy, and absence of notes on the selection process. The findings were not perverse. However, the Tribunal erred in not considering Mr Bishop's individual liability separately, and his name should be removed from the declaration of discrimination.

Court Disposition

Council's appeal dismissed; Mr Bishop's appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Declaration of discrimination against Brighton Borough Council upheld
  • Compensation order of £3,000 to Ms Richards affirmed