Jagbir Sidhu v Our Place Schools Limited
[2023] EAT 70
Daniel Matovu v 2 Temple Gardens Chambers & Ors
20 April 2023
[2023] EAT 58
Employment Appeal Tribunal
A lawyer sued his workplace for racism. The first court said no, and a higher court agreed, saying the first trial was fair and the evidence didn't show racism.
Key Facts
- •Mr Matovu, a barrister, brought claims against his chambers, head of chambers, and senior clerk for direct and indirect race discrimination, harassment, and victimisation.
- •The Employment Tribunal (ET) dismissed all claims, partly due to time limits.
- •Mr Matovu appealed on grounds of procedural unfairness, apparent bias, errors of law, and inadequate reasons.
- •The appeal concerned the ET's handling of procedural applications, cross-examination, closing submissions, and specific claims.
Legal Principles
Employment Tribunal's discretion in procedure; overriding objective of fairness and justice.
Paragraph 41 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Right to a fair hearing under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Article 6 ECHR
Test for apparent bias: would a fair-minded and informed observer conclude a real possibility of bias?
Porter v McGill [2002] AC 357
Duty to give reasons for decisions on disputed issues.
Paragraph 62 of Schedule 1 of the ET Rules 2013
Direct discrimination: less favourable treatment because of a protected characteristic.
Section 13 Equality Act 2010
Victimisation: detriment because of a protected act (e.g., raising discrimination issues).
Section 27 Equality Act 2010
Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 (burden of proof).
Section 136 Equality Act 2010
Detriment: material disadvantage; reasonable worker test.
Derbyshire v St Helens Metropolitan Council [2007] UKHL 16
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The ET's procedures were deemed fair, and its findings on the merits of the discrimination and victimisation claims were upheld.