Misplaced Pages

St Helen's BC v Derbyshire

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted.
Find sources: "St Helen's BC v Derbyshire" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (August 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "St Helen's BC v Derbyshire" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (October 2024) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)

St Helen’s BC v Derbyshire
CourtHouse of Lords
Decided25 April 2007
Citations UKHL 16, ICR 841
Case opinions
Lord Neuberger, Lord Bingham, Lord Hope, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell
Keywords
Discrimination

St Helen's Borough Council v Derbyshire UKHL 16 is a UK labour law case concerning victimisation, which now falls under section 27 of the Equality Act 2010.

Facts

470 women had brought equal pay claims against St Helen's MBC. Most had settled, and shared a lump sum of compensation, but Ms Derbyshire with 38 others had continued. The council had sent two letters, one of which said that if they pursued the claim it could threaten school dinners and lead to redundancies in the workforce.

Employment Tribunal held that this was victimisation because the letter ‘amounted to an attempt to induce the acquiescence of individuals despite the view of their union’. The Court of Appeal reversed the finding.

Judgment

The House of Lords allowed the appeal. The court should focus on the word ‘detriment’ under SDA 1975 s 4. It is difficult to imagine how an ‘honest and reasonable’ action by an employer could lead to ‘detriment’ on the employee's part. So here, the employment tribunal had reached a justifiable answer.

Lord Neuberger said Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v Khan was correct, but its juridical analysis and its subsequent interpretation were not entirely satisfactory. The more appropriate approach was to ask whether the worker had suffered a detriment. First, the ‘honest and reasonable employer’ test is not at all in the legislation. Second, the meaning on ‘by reason that’ is uncomfortable. And third, it shifts the considerations more to the side of whether the perpetrator viewed the act as victimisation. Instead, it was better to follow, which Lord Hoffmann in Khan approved, Brightman LJ in Ministry of Defence v Jeremiah that ‘a detriment exists if a reasonable worker would or might take the view that the was in all the circumstances to his detriment’. He gave the example of a ‘measured and accurate’ letter from a solicitor setting out financial consequences if a claim succeeds or fails not being able to constitute detriment. And detriment is not mere mental distress because it ought to be reasonable.

Lord Bingham, Lord Hope, Baroness Hale and Lord Carswell gave concurring opinions.

See also

Victimisation cases
Equality Act 2010 s 27
Nagarajan v London Regional Transport UKHL 36
West Yorkshire Police v Khan UKHL 48
Waters v Metropolitan Police ICR 1073
Shamoon v Royal Ulster Constabulary UKHL 11
St Helen’s BC v Derbyshire UKHL 16
See UK labour and UK employment equality law

Notes

  1. UKHL 16, -
  2. UKHL 48
  3. ICR 13 at 31

References

Categories: