HSBC Plc v Drage [2003] UKEAT 0369_02_0807 (8 July 2003)

HSBC Plc v Drage [2003] UKEAT 0369_02_0807 (8 July 2003)

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the test for constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, failing to properly identify breaches of contract or discriminatory requirements, and incorrectly segmenting negotiations into separate actionable requirements. No constructive dismissal or sex discrimination occurred; only the final requirement was imposed and it was not discriminatory.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0369_02_0807
Parties
Appellant: HSBC Bank Plc; Respondent: Mrs Drage; Respondent's Representative: Mr S Drage
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 July 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal on Liability and Remedy
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Constructive Dismissal, Mobility Clause, Sex Discrimination, Remedy, Time Limits
Employment Law Discrimination Law Constructive Dismissal Mobility Clause Sex Discrimination Remedy Time Limits

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HSBC Bank Plc

Appellant

Mrs Drage

Respondent

Mr S Drage

Respondent's Representative

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal on Liability and Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's actions amounted to constructive dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the requirements imposed constituted indirect sex discrimination
  3. 3 Proper application of mobility clause and implied term of trust and confidence

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the test for constructive dismissal and indirect sex discrimination, failing to properly identify breaches of contract or discriminatory requirements, and incorrectly segmenting negotiations into separate actionable requirements. No constructive dismissal or sex discrimination occurred; only the final requirement was imposed and it was not discriminatory.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Findings substituted: dismissal not unfair, no sex discrimination
  • Appeal on remedy allowed; no compensation awarded