Mott MacDonald Ltd v Rivkin (Age Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0488_10_0803 (08 March 2011)

Mott MacDonald Ltd v Rivkin (Age Discrimination) [2011] UKEAT 0488_10_0803 (08 March 2011)

The Tribunal was not entitled to find that Mr Thistlethwaite lied about his knowledge of the claimant's age without properly addressing his explanation and without putting the documentary inconsistency to him. Even if a lie had been found, it could not by itself be determinative under regulation 37; the Tribunal's reasoning was legally flawed and the appeal must be allowed.

Citation
[2011] UKEAT 0488_10_0803
Parties
Appellant: Mott MacDonald Ltd; Respondent: Dr Rivkin
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Age Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Credibility of Witnesses
Employment Law Discrimination Law Age Discrimination Burden of Proof Credibility of Witnesses

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mott MacDonald Ltd

Appellant

Dr Rivkin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal was entitled to find that the employer discriminated on grounds of age
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's finding that the witness lied was justified
  3. 3 Whether a lie by a witness is determinative under the burden of proof provisions

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not entitled to find that Mr Thistlethwaite lied about his knowledge of the claimant's age without properly addressing his explanation and without putting the documentary inconsistency to him. Even if a lie had been found, it could not by itself be determinative under regulation 37; the Tribunal's reasoning was legally flawed and the appeal must be allowed.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The claim of age discrimination is dismissed unless the claimant lodges written submissions within 14 days contending that the case should be remitted for further consideration.
  • If submissions are received, the appellant will have 14 days to respond and the matter will be considered by the Tribunal on the papers.