Sun Mark Ltd & Ors v Kaur (SEX DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VICTIMISATION) [2022] EAT 32 (25 February 2022)

Sun Mark Ltd & Ors v Kaur (SEX DISCRIMINATION, HARASSMENT & VICTIMISATION) [2022] EAT 32 (25 February 2022)

The Tribunal's findings that all allegations were made in good faith could not be reconciled with findings of exaggeration and distortion; the Tribunal misapplied the burden of proof under s.136 in finding what Mr Ahuja said; and failed to address whether Lord Ranger's conduct was caused by the manner of complaint....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] EAT 32
Parties
Appellant: Sun Mark Ltd; Appellant: Lord Rami Ranger; Appellant: Sea Air Land Forwarding Ltd; Appellant: Harmeet Ahuja; Respondent: Ms Ramandeep Kaur
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal to Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings of victimisation against Mr Ahuja and Lord Ranger set aside and remitted; other findings stand.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Protected Acts, Bad Faith Allegations
Employment Law Equality Law Sex Discrimination Harassment Victimisation Burden of Proof Protected Acts Bad Faith Allegations

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sun Mark Ltd

Appellant

Lord Rami Ranger

Appellant

Sea Air Land Forwarding Ltd

Appellant

Harmeet Ahuja

Appellant

Ms Ramandeep Kaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal to Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in its approach to bad faith and protected acts under Equality Act 2010 s.27 in victimisation findings against Mr Ahuja and Lord Ranger
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal misapplied the burden of proof under Equality Act 2010 s.136 regarding what was said by Mr Ahuja
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider if Lord Ranger's conduct was caused by the manner of complaint rather than the fact of complaint (severability)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's findings that all allegations were made in good faith could not be reconciled with findings of exaggeration and distortion; the Tribunal misapplied the burden of proof under s.136 in finding what Mr Ahuja said; and failed to address whether Lord Ranger's conduct was caused by the manner of complaint. These errors required remittal of the victimisation findings for reconsideration. Findings of harassment and discrimination by Lord Ranger were adequately reasoned and not perverse.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings of victimisation against Mr Ahuja and Lord Ranger set aside and remitted; other findings stand.

Orders

  • Remit to Employment Tribunal to determine which allegations were protected acts, whether Mr Ahuja said the alleged words, causation of detriment, and whether Lord Ranger's conduct was because of protected acts.
  • Remittal to original Tribunal.