header-logo header-logo

05 August 2016 / Dr Katy Ferris , Dr James Marson
Issue: 7710 / Categories: Features , Employment
printer mail-detail

Splitting hairs?

Is it discrimination? James Marson & Katy Ferris examine the different approaches of the court to mistreatment on grounds of nationality & immigration status

  • In Taiwo v Olaigbe and another: Onu v Akwiwu and another the Supreme Court had to decide whether the appellants suffered mistreatment on the basis of their nationality (protected by s 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010)) or due to their vulnerable immigration status (not protected).

The case of Taiwo v Olaigbe and another: Onu v Akwiwu and another [2016] UKSC 31, [2016] All ER (D) 134 (Jun) involved the mistreatment of migrant domestic workers by their employers and whether such action amounted to direct or indirect race discrimination.

The question for the Supreme Court was whether the appellants suffered mistreatment on the basis of their nationality (which would be protected by s 13(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010)) or due to their vulnerable immigration status (which is not protected).

The facts

Ms Taiwo’s case

Ms Taiwo, a Nigerian national, entered the UK in 2010

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll