Naz v. Orthet Ltd (t/a Emporio) & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0320_03_2306 (23 June 2003)

Naz v. Orthet Ltd (t/a Emporio) & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0320_03_2306 (23 June 2003)

The Tribunal's decision was based on its assessment of the credibility of the parties' evidence. There was no misdirection in law; the Tribunal was entitled to prefer the Respondents' evidence and to find that Miss Naz's allegations were not credible. The award of costs was justified given the Tribunal's findings of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0320_03_2306
Parties
Appellant: Miss Naz; First Respondent: Emporio Armani (employers); Second Respondent: Second Respondent (Deputy Supervisor at Bond Street); Third Respondent: Mrs Manku
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Protected Disclosure, Costs
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Protected Disclosure Costs

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Miss Naz

Appellant

Emporio Armani (employers)

First Respondent

Second Respondent (Deputy Supervisor at Bond Street)

Second Respondent

Mrs Manku

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in dismissing claims of race discrimination, victimisation, and unfair dismissal
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in its approach to evidence and credibility
  3. 3 Whether the award of costs against the appellant was perverse

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision was based on its assessment of the credibility of the parties' evidence. There was no misdirection in law; the Tribunal was entitled to prefer the Respondents' evidence and to find that Miss Naz's allegations were not credible. The award of costs was justified given the Tribunal's findings of vexatious conduct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No error of law found in Tribunal's decision