Deer v Walford & Anor (Victimisation Discrimination : no sub-topic) [2010] UKEAT 0283_10_2004 (20 April 2011)

Deer v Walford & Anor (Victimisation Discrimination : no sub-topic) [2010] UKEAT 0283_10_2004 (20 April 2011)

The Tribunal was entitled to find that Professor Walford did not know the Appellant had brought a sex discrimination claim and that his refusal to provide a reference was genuine and unrelated to any protected act. The Tribunal was also entitled to reject the argument that questionnaire answers were evasive or justified an inference of victimisation. The costs order was justified as the claim was misconceived and unreasonably pursued after a deposit order.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0283_10_2004
Parties
Appellant: Cecile Dear; First Respondent: Professor Geoffrey Walford; Second Respondent: University of Oxford
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Victimisation and Costs
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Sex Discrimination, Costs Orders, Statutory Questionnaires, Vicarious Liability
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Sex Discrimination Costs Orders Statutory Questionnaires Vicarious Liability

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

Cecile Dear

Appellant

Professor Geoffrey Walford

First Respondent

University of Oxford

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Tribunal Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision on Victimisation and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Professor Walford victimised the Appellant by refusing a reference due to her prior sex discrimination claim
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in not drawing adverse inferences from allegedly evasive questionnaire answers
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal's costs order was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that Professor Walford did not know the Appellant had brought a sex discrimination claim and that his refusal to provide a reference was genuine and unrelated to any protected act. The Tribunal was also entitled to reject the argument that questionnaire answers were evasive or justified an inference of victimisation. The costs order was justified as the claim was misconceived and unreasonably pursued after a deposit order.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim of victimisation dismissed
  • Costs order against the Appellant upheld