Hollinghurst v James Hall & Co Ltd [2017] UKEAT 0162_17_2112 (21 December 2017)
The Employment Tribunal did not err in its application of the burden of proof provisions or in its assessment of whether the claimant suffered a detriment, as the findings of fact did not establish treatment linked to pregnancy or maternity leave, nor a detriment.
- Citation
- [2017] UKEAT 0162_17_2112
- Parties
- Appellant: Claimant; Respondent: Respondent
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 21 December 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Full Hearing of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Sex Discrimination, Pregnancy Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Detriment, Maternity Leave
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Claimant
Appellant
Respondent
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Full Hearing of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in applying the burden of proof under section 48(2) Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 136 Equality Act 2010
- 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to properly determine if the claimant suffered a detriment
- 3 Whether the treatment was because of pregnancy or maternity leave
Ratio Decidendi
The Employment Tribunal did not err in its application of the burden of proof provisions or in its assessment of whether the claimant suffered a detriment, as the findings of fact did not establish treatment linked to pregnancy or maternity leave, nor a detriment.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
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