header-logo header-logo

Employment

26 April 2012
Issue: 7511 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Hawkins v Atex Group Ltd and others UKEAT/0302/11/LA, [2012] All ER (D) 71 (Apr)

It was established law that the characteristic protected by s 3 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was the fact of being married. The relevant comparator was a person who was not married. Since, in any comparison for the purpose of s 3, the relevant circumstances had to be the same but for the protected characteristic, the appropriate comparator would usually be someone in a relationship akin to marriage but who was not married.

It was important to appreciate that a case where a woman was dismissed because she was married to a particular person would not always fall within the scope of s 3. It was essential that the fact that they were married was part of the ground for the employer’s action. The question was not whether the employee suffered the treatment in question because she was married to a particular man, but whether she suffered it because she was married to that man.
 

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll