Hooper v. Sherborne School [2009] UKEAT 1375_08_0909 (9 September 2009)

Hooper v. Sherborne School [2009] UKEAT 1375_08_0909 (9 September 2009)

The Tribunal was entitled to reject the victimisation claim as it found the Claimant's evidence untruthful and accepted the Respondent's lack of knowledge of the prior proceedings. The costs order was justified due to the unreasonable pursuit of the claim and refusal of a reasonable settlement. Raising a new legal point on suspicion under s2(1) was not permitted as it required further factual investigation not suitable for appeal.

Citation
[2009] UKEAT 1375_08_0909
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs Hooper; Respondent: Sherborne School
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 September 2009
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Rule 3(10) Renewed Application/appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Race Discrimination, Costs, New Evidence on Appeal
Employment Law Discrimination Law Victimisation Race Discrimination Costs New Evidence on Appeal

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Hooper

Claimant/appellant

Sherborne School

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Rule 3(10) Renewed Application/appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in rejecting the victimisation claim under the Race Relations Act 1976 s2(1)
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in awarding costs against the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether a new legal point based on Respondent's suspicion under s2(1) could be raised on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to reject the victimisation claim as it found the Claimant's evidence untruthful and accepted the Respondent's lack of knowledge of the prior proceedings. The costs order was justified due to the unreasonable pursuit of the claim and refusal of a reasonable settlement. Raising a new legal point on suspicion under s2(1) was not permitted as it required further factual investigation not suitable for appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to raise new legal point refused
  • Appeal against rejection of victimisation claim dismissed