Kwik Save Group Plc v Patterson [1995] UKEAT 424_94_1905 (19 May 1995)

Kwik Save Group Plc v Patterson [1995] UKEAT 424_94_1905 (19 May 1995)

The Industrial Tribunal erred in law by inferring direct racial discrimination without identifying any specific act of discrimination or establishing that any less favourable treatment was on racial grounds. The evidence showed Mr Patterson was considered for promotion, and there was no finding of deliberate or intentional discrimination. Therefore, the finding of direct discrimination could not be sustained.

Citation
[1995] UKEAT 424_94_1905
Parties
Appellant: Kwik Save Plc; Respondent: Mr Patterson
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 May 1995
Procedural Posture
Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
appeal allowed; application dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Promotion Procedures, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Promotion Procedures Burden of Proof

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kwik Save Plc

Appellant

Mr Patterson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Discrimination Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in finding direct racial discrimination against Mr Patterson by Kwik Save Plc in the promotion process.
  2. 2 Whether there was sufficient factual basis for an inference of direct racial discrimination.

Ratio Decidendi

The Industrial Tribunal erred in law by inferring direct racial discrimination without identifying any specific act of discrimination or establishing that any less favourable treatment was on racial grounds. The evidence showed Mr Patterson was considered for promotion, and there was no finding of deliberate or intentional discrimination. Therefore, the finding of direct discrimination could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; application dismissed