Smith v Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd (Sexual Orientation Discrimination/Transexualism) [2013] UKEAT 0590_12_1605 (16 May 2013)

Smith v Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd (Sexual Orientation Discrimination/Transexualism) [2013] UKEAT 0590_12_1605 (16 May 2013)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by conflating and misapprehending key evidence on harassment, failing to apply the correct legal test by ignoring the 'effect' limb, and by inadequately explaining why dismissal was inevitable, given the available disciplinary outcomes and employment history. These errors require the findings on harassment and the consequences of dismissal to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Citation
[2013] UKEAT 0590_12_1605
Parties
Appellant: Claimant (C); Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings on harassment and dismissal consequences set aside and remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Sexual Orientation Discrimination, Victimisation, Harassment, Dismissal, Employment Equality (sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
Employment Law Equality Law Sexual Orientation Discrimination Victimisation Harassment Dismissal Employment Equality (sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (C)

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to harassment claims under the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that dismissal was inevitable and limiting compensation accordingly

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by conflating and misapprehending key evidence on harassment, failing to apply the correct legal test by ignoring the 'effect' limb, and by inadequately explaining why dismissal was inevitable, given the available disciplinary outcomes and employment history. These errors require the findings on harassment and the consequences of dismissal to be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings on harassment and dismissal consequences set aside and remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • Remit questions of harassment and loss flowing from dismissal to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.
  • Victimisation finding stands and is binding on the new Tribunal.