Teruel-Fanning v Park View Rest Homes Ltd [2003] UKEAT 638_02_0905 (9 May 2003)

Teruel-Fanning v Park View Rest Homes Ltd [2003] UKEAT 638_02_0905 (9 May 2003)

The Employment Tribunal's finding that the pay differential was due to recruitment and accommodation costs, not race, was a question of fact and not an error of law. The Tribunal's failure to expressly consider adverse inference from non-disclosure of pay information did not constitute an error of law, as sufficient information was later provided. The Tribunal was not required to offer further procedural opportunities to the Appellant's solicitor absent a specific application.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 638_02_0905
Parties
Appellant: Mrs Fanning (formerly Maila Teruel); Respondent: Park View Rest Homes Limited
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Equal Pay, Constructive Dismissal, Unlawful Deductions From Wages
Employment Law Equality Law Race Discrimination Equal Pay Constructive Dismissal Unlawful Deductions From Wages

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Fanning (formerly Maila Teruel)

Appellant

Park View Rest Homes Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the pay differential between Filipino nurses and other nurses constituted race discrimination
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider drawing adverse inference from non-disclosure of pay information
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to critically analyse the employer's explanation for pay differential

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal's finding that the pay differential was due to recruitment and accommodation costs, not race, was a question of fact and not an error of law. The Tribunal's failure to expressly consider adverse inference from non-disclosure of pay information did not constitute an error of law, as sufficient information was later provided. The Tribunal was not required to offer further procedural opportunities to the Appellant's solicitor absent a specific application.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No error of law found in Employment Tribunal's decision
  • Employment Tribunal's decision upheld