Ahmed v City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council & Ors (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2014] UKEAT 0145_14_2710 (27 October 2014)

Ahmed v City Of Bradford Metropolitan District Council & Ors (Victimisation Discrimination : Protected disclosure) [2014] UKEAT 0145_14_2710 (27 October 2014)

The Employment Tribunal applied too strict a test for causation and wrongly separated the motivation for writing the reference from the motivation for acting on it. The negative reference, tainted by protected disclosure, materially influenced the decision not to appoint the claimant, and Bradford is liable for the detriment. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a new Employment Tribunal to determine whether the dismissal was automatically unfair.

Citation
[2014] UKEAT 0145_14_2710
Parties
Appellant: Mr Ahmed; Respondent: Bradford (First Respondent); Respondent: Ms Anne-Marie Baker (Second Respondent); Respondent: Mr Terry Davis (Third Respondent); Respondent: Mr Jani Rashid (Fourth Respondent); Respondent: Ms Karen Hoyle (Fifth Respondent); Respondent: Ms Catherine Davies (Sixth Respondent)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment and Remittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed, matter remitted to new Employment Tribunal
Legal Topics
Protected Disclosure, Victimisation, Unfair Dismissal, Whistleblowing, Disability Discrimination, Reasonable Adjustments
Employment Law Equality Law Protected Disclosure Victimisation Unfair Dismissal Whistleblowing Disability Discrimination Reasonable Adjustments

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ahmed

Appellant

Bradford (First Respondent)

Respondent

Ms Anne-Marie Baker (Second Respondent)

Respondent

Mr Terry Davis (Third Respondent)

Respondent

Mr Jani Rashid (Fourth Respondent)

Respondent

Ms Karen Hoyle (Fifth Respondent)

Respondent

Ms Catherine Davies (Sixth Respondent)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment and Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant suffered detriment due to protected disclosure
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was automatically unfair under section 103A ERA
  3. 3 Whether the employer's actions constituted victimisation under Equality Act 2010

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal applied too strict a test for causation and wrongly separated the motivation for writing the reference from the motivation for acting on it. The negative reference, tainted by protected disclosure, materially influenced the decision not to appoint the claimant, and Bradford is liable for the detriment. The appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a new Employment Tribunal to determine whether the dismissal was automatically unfair.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, matter remitted to new Employment Tribunal

Orders

  • Finding substituted that claimant suffered detriment by reason of protected disclosure in not being appointed to SCDO post or removal of offer
  • Remitted to new Employment Tribunal to determine automatic unfair dismissal