header-logo header-logo

13 February 2015 / Catherine Urquhart
Issue: 7640 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Casting aspersions

urquhart

Catherine Urquhart reports on a new frontier in discrimination law

There has recently been extensive discussion of whether discrimination on the basis of one’s caste may be prohibited by s 9(1) of the Equality Act 2010, which bans discrimination on the grounds of race.

On 19 December 2014 Mr Justice Langstaff handed down his judgment in the first Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) case to consider caste-based discrimination, Chandhok v Tirkey UKEAT/0190/14/KN, [2015] All ER (D) 91 (Jan).

Ms Tirkey had alleged that her employers, Mr and Mrs Chandhok, had discriminated against her in part due to her low status in the caste system. At a preliminary hearing, Employment Judge Sigsworth had refused to strike out the amendment claiming caste-based discrimination, and the respondents appealed.

Section 9(1) of the Equality Act 2010 defines “race” as including: (a) colour; (b) nationality; (c) ethnic or national origins. There is currently no reference to caste in this sub-section.

Langstaff P considered Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, [1983] 1 All ER 1062 (the case which

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll