Denteh v. Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis & Ors [2003] UKEAT 1033_00_1601 (16 January 2003)

Denteh v. Commissioner of Police for The Metropolis & Ors [2003] UKEAT 1033_00_1601 (16 January 2003)

No appearance of bias was made out as the Respondents did not remain in the hearing room for an improper period and no improper conversation occurred; the Tribunal did not demonstrate a closed mind and properly assessed the evidence; no victimisation occurred as both the Applicant and comparator were treated equally and the causative link was not established.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 1033_00_1601
Parties
Appellant: Mr Denteh; Respondents: Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and four individual employees of MPS
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Constructive Unfair Dismissal, Bias, Procedural Irregularity, Perversity
Employment Law Equality Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Constructive Unfair Dismissal Bias Procedural Irregularity Perversity

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Denteh

Appellant

Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and four individual employees of MPS

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal permitted an appearance of bias
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal demonstrated a closed mind to points favourable to the Appellant
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents victimised the Appellant by seeking references after a protected act

Ratio Decidendi

No appearance of bias was made out as the Respondents did not remain in the hearing room for an improper period and no improper conversation occurred; the Tribunal did not demonstrate a closed mind and properly assessed the evidence; no victimisation occurred as both the Applicant and comparator were treated equally and the causative link was not established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed