Alam v Chief Constable Shaw & Ors [1996] UKEAT 1039_95_2410 (24 October 1996)

Alam v Chief Constable Shaw & Ors [1996] UKEAT 1039_95_2410 (24 October 1996)

The Tribunal found that although the appellant suffered detriments, there was no evidence that these were motivated by race or that a white officer would have been treated differently. The actions taken were due to genuine concerns about the appellant's driving and conduct, not his ethnic origin. The Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence and were not perverse or unreasonable.

Citation
[1996] UKEAT 1039_95_2410
Parties
Appellant: PC Alam; Respondents: Cleveland Constabulary and Officers (including Chief Inspector Evans and Inspector Megginson)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Vicarious Liability, Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings
Employment Law Discrimination Law Race Discrimination Vicarious Liability Procedural Fairness in Disciplinary Proceedings

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PC Alam

Appellant

Cleveland Constabulary and Officers (including Chief Inspector Evans and Inspector Megginson)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Industrial Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was subjected to racial discrimination by his employer and its officers
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary and investigatory actions taken against the appellant were motivated by race or would have been taken against a white officer in similar circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that although the appellant suffered detriments, there was no evidence that these were motivated by race or that a white officer would have been treated differently. The actions taken were due to genuine concerns about the appellant's driving and conduct, not his ethnic origin. The Tribunal's findings were supported by evidence and were not perverse or unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed