Cunningham v. Quedos Ltd & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0298_03_1411 (14 November 2003)

Cunningham v. Quedos Ltd & Anor [2003] UKEAT 0298_03_1411 (14 November 2003)

The Tribunal failed to recognise and apply the correct burden of proof under section 63A, having been presented with a prima facie case of sex discrimination by Wyeth. The Tribunal should have required Wyeth to prove that discrimination was not the reason for the Applicant's treatment.

Citation
[2003] UKEAT 0298_03_1411
Parties
Applicant: Ms Cunningham; Respondent: Wyeth (John Wyeth & Brother Ltd)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
14 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of burden of proof; case remitted for fresh hearing before a differently-constituted Tribunal.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Aiding Unlawful Acts
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Burden of Proof Aiding Unlawful Acts

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Cunningham

Applicant

Wyeth (John Wyeth & Brother Ltd)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Wyeth aided unlawful sex discrimination under section 42 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof under section 63A

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal failed to recognise and apply the correct burden of proof under section 63A, having been presented with a prima facie case of sex discrimination by Wyeth. The Tribunal should have required Wyeth to prove that discrimination was not the reason for the Applicant's treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of burden of proof; case remitted for fresh hearing before a differently-constituted Tribunal.

Orders

  • Fresh hearing before a differently-constituted Employment Tribunal
  • Permission to appeal to Court of Appeal refused