Stenning v. Jarman & Anor [2000] UKEAT 1288_99_1711 (17 November 2000)

Stenning v. Jarman & Anor [2000] UKEAT 1288_99_1711 (17 November 2000)

The Employment Tribunal failed to properly carry out the necessary enquiry into whether the appellant was treated less favourably than a notional comparator and did not adequately consider the treatment of other employees or the respondent's explanation. The Tribunal's approach was flawed, warranting remittal for rehearing.

Citation
[2000] UKEAT 1288_99_1711
Parties
Appellant: Ms Stenning; First Respondent: Mr Jarman; Second Respondent: London Borough of Hackney
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Comparators in Discrimination, References in Employment, Remittal for Rehearing
Employment Law Discrimination Law Racial Discrimination Burden of Proof Comparators in Discrimination References in Employment Remittal for Rehearing

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Stenning

Appellant

Mr Jarman

First Respondent

London Borough of Hackney

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to comparators under the Race Relations Act 1976
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal properly considered less favourable treatment and the explanation for it
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal correctly applied the burden of proof and inference principles in discrimination cases

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal failed to properly carry out the necessary enquiry into whether the appellant was treated less favourably than a notional comparator and did not adequately consider the treatment of other employees or the respondent's explanation. The Tribunal's approach was flawed, warranting remittal for rehearing.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; matter remitted for rehearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

Orders

  • Matter remitted for rehearing before a new tribunal.
  • Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.