Jabbal v. Consignia Plc [2001] UKEAT 377_01_1109 (11 September 2001)

Jabbal v. Consignia Plc [2001] UKEAT 377_01_1109 (11 September 2001)

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law; its decision would have been the same whether applying the motivation or causative test for victimisation. No error of law or reasonable argument for error exists.

Citation
[2001] UKEAT 377_01_1109
Parties
Appellant: Mr Jabbal; Respondent: Post Office
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 September 2001
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Victimisation, Short Listing Procedures
Employment Law Equality Law Racial Discrimination Victimisation Short Listing Procedures

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Jabbal

Appellant

Post Office

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by not applying the causative test for victimisation under Race Relations Act 1976 as established in Nagarajan v London Regional Transport

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal did not err in law; its decision would have been the same whether applying the motivation or causative test for victimisation. No error of law or reasonable argument for error exists.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed