Barker & Ors v Shahrokni [1996] UKEAT 89_95_0503 (5 March 1996)

Barker & Ors v Shahrokni [1996] UKEAT 89_95_0503 (5 March 1996)

The appeal was allowed because the Industrial Tribunal failed to provide sufficient findings of fact and reasoning to justify holding Dr Eames personally liable for direct discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal did not adequately distinguish Dr Eames's actions from those of other respondents or explain the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 89_95_0503
Parties
1st Appellant: Kingsway College; 3rd Appellant: Mrs B Barker; 2nd Appellant: Dr K Eames; Appellant (withdrawn): Mrs P Haikin; Respondent (complaint Dismissed): Ms Daly; Respondent: Mr Farhad Shahrokni
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of Dr Eames; case remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Direct Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Vicarious Liability, Personal Liability of Employees, Reasoning Requirements in Tribunal Decisions
Employment Law Equality Law Direct Racial Discrimination Victimisation Vicarious Liability Personal Liability of Employees Reasoning Requirements in Tribunal Decisions

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kingsway College

1st Appellant

Mrs B Barker

3rd Appellant

Dr K Eames

2nd Appellant

Mrs P Haikin

Appellant (withdrawn)

Ms Daly

Respondent (complaint Dismissed)

Mr Farhad Shahrokni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Industrial Tribunal gave adequate reasons for finding Dr Eames personally liable for direct racial discrimination and victimisation under the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the findings of fact and reasoning were sufficient to support liability under Sections 1, 2, 4, or 33 of the Race Relations Act 1976

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the Industrial Tribunal failed to provide sufficient findings of fact and reasoning to justify holding Dr Eames personally liable for direct discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal did not adequately distinguish Dr Eames's actions from those of other respondents or explain the basis for his liability under the relevant statutory provisions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of Dr Eames; case remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted Industrial Tribunal.

Orders

  • Appeals of Mrs Haikin and Mrs Barker withdrawn and dismissed.
  • Case against Dr Eames remitted to a different Industrial Tribunal for rehearing.