Hussaney v Chester City FC & Anor [2001] UKEAT 203_98_1501 (15 January 2001)

Hussaney v Chester City FC & Anor [2001] UKEAT 203_98_1501 (15 January 2001)

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide proper and adequate reasons for its decision to reject the claim of victimisation. The Tribunal did not specifically address key points of evidence and argument raised by the appellant, including the respondent's reply to the statutory questionnaire and the conduct of decision-makers. The case is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 203_98_1501
Parties
Appellant: James Hussaney; First Respondent: Chester City Football Club; Second Respondent: Mr Kevin Ratcliffe
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
15 January 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision, Remitted for Rehearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Employment Contracts, Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Discrimination Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Employment Contracts 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hussaney

Appellant

Chester City Football Club

First Respondent

Mr Kevin Ratcliffe

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision, Remitted for Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the claim of victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the failure to offer a professional contract to the appellant was an act of victimisation following a protected act (complaint of racial abuse)

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to provide proper and adequate reasons for its decision to reject the claim of victimisation. The Tribunal did not specifically address key points of evidence and argument raised by the appellant, including the respondent's reply to the statutory questionnaire and the conduct of decision-makers. The case is remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Employment Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; case remitted for rehearing

Orders

  • The appellant's claim for discrimination by way of victimisation against the second respondent is remitted to a differently constituted Employment Tribunal for rehearing.
  • All aspects of the claim are to be reconsidered, with causation as the primary live issue.