Saga Petroleum v. Bourgeois [2000] EAT 327_99_1707 (17 July 2000)

Saga Petroleum v. Bourgeois [2000] EAT 327_99_1707 (17 July 2000)

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to infer, based on primary facts and absence of credible explanation from Saga, that Mr Bourgeois was dismissed on grounds of nationality as part of a policy of Norwegianisation. The comparator analysis and reasoning were adequate, and the appeal fails on all grounds.

Citation
[2000] EAT 327_99_1707
Parties
Appellant: Saga Petroleum (UK) Ltd; Respondent: Mr Bourgeois
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Racial Discrimination, Unfair Dismissal, Burden of Proof, Drawing Inferences, Comparator Analysis
Employment Law Equality Law Racial Discrimination Unfair Dismissal Burden of Proof Drawing Inferences Comparator Analysis

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saga Petroleum (UK) Ltd

Appellant

Mr Bourgeois

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bourgeois was unlawfully discriminated against on racial grounds (nationality)
  2. 2 Whether the dismissal was due to a policy of 'Norwegianisation'
  3. 3 Adequacy of reasons for dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal was entitled to infer, based on primary facts and absence of credible explanation from Saga, that Mr Bourgeois was dismissed on grounds of nationality as part of a policy of Norwegianisation. The comparator analysis and reasoning were adequate, and the appeal fails on all grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Employment Tribunal's finding of unlawful racial discrimination upheld
  • No admission of additional evidence (Norton Rose notes)