Iteshi v London Borough Of Harrow & Ors (Race Discrimination : Direct) [2010] UKEAT 0240_10_0308 (3 August 2011)

Iteshi v London Borough Of Harrow & Ors (Race Discrimination : Direct) [2010] UKEAT 0240_10_0308 (3 August 2011)

The appeal was dismissed because the Employment Tribunal's findings that the appellant was not shortlisted due to lack of relevant experience, and that the withdrawal of the job offer was due to his behaviour and not race, were open to it on the evidence and involved no error of law, misdirection, or inadequacy of reasons.

Citation
[2010] UKEAT 0240_10_0308
Parties
Appellant: John Iteshi; First Respondent: London Borough of Harrow; Second Respondent: Ms Jessica Farmer; Third Respondent: Ms Sharon Clarke
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
03 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Direct Discrimination, Employment Recruitment, Shortlisting Criteria, Anticipatory Breach of Contract, Costs in Employment Tribunal
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Direct Discrimination Employment Recruitment Shortlisting Criteria Anticipatory Breach of Contract Costs in Employment Tribunal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Iteshi

Appellant

London Borough of Harrow

First Respondent

Ms Jessica Farmer

Second Respondent

Ms Sharon Clarke

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was discriminated against on grounds of race in not being shortlisted for Legal Assistant post
  2. 2 Whether the withdrawal of the offer of Legal Services Officer post was due to race discrimination
  3. 3 Whether failure to provide temporary agency work constituted less favourable treatment or breach of contract

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Employment Tribunal's findings that the appellant was not shortlisted due to lack of relevant experience, and that the withdrawal of the job offer was due to his behaviour and not race, were open to it on the evidence and involved no error of law, misdirection, or inadequacy of reasons.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No change to Employment Tribunal's decision
  • Costs order of £220.00 against the appellant stands