Jack v. Pinkerton Security Services Ltd [2000] EAT 533_99_0712 (7 December 2000)

Jack v. Pinkerton Security Services Ltd [2000] EAT 533_99_0712 (7 December 2000)

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no race discrimination, victimisation, or wrongful dismissal by the respondent; the acts complained of were either not discriminatory or outside the limitation period; the respondent acted on client instructions and there was no evidence of a discriminatory regime or policy; the Tribunal's findings were not perverse and dismissal would have occurred regardless of race or complaints.

Citation
[2000] EAT 533_99_0712
Parties
Appellant: Mr William Jack; Respondent: Pinkertons
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Dated 26 February 1999
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Wrongful Dismissal, Continuing Act of Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Employment Tribunal Procedure
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Wrongful Dismissal Continuing Act of Discrimination Burden of Proof Employment Tribunal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr William Jack

Appellant

Pinkertons

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision Dated 26 February 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was subjected to race discrimination by the respondent
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was victimised for making complaints of discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was wrongfully dismissed

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find, on the evidence, that there was no race discrimination, victimisation, or wrongful dismissal by the respondent; the acts complained of were either not discriminatory or outside the limitation period; the respondent acted on client instructions and there was no evidence of a discriminatory regime or policy; the Tribunal's findings were not perverse and dismissal would have occurred regardless of race or complaints.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed