London Underground Ltd v Edwards (No 2)

An unsuccessful appellant may be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords may be refused even where the case raises important and difficult questions and a further appeal is not regarded as frivolous. The Court of Appeal may leave the proposed appellant to petition the House directly.

The supplied text records the unanimous dismissal of the appeal but does not contain the previously handed-down judgments or disclose their substantive reasoning on indirect sex discrimination.

London Underground Ltd appealed from the Employment Appeal Tribunal in proceedings brought by Susan Patricia Edwards concerning indirect sex discrimination. The Industrial Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal had previously rejected London Underground’s challenge.

The supplied transcript contains only the post-judgment discussion. It records that the Court of Appeal had already handed down its judgments and had reached a unanimous conclusion. It does not reproduce those judgments. The discussion concerns the formal disposition, costs and London Underground’s application for leave to appeal to the House of Lords.

1. Appeal dismissed. Lord Justice Simon Brown stated that the appeal was dismissed for the reasons given in the judgments already handed down. Those judgments are absent from the supplied text. The substantive ratio concerning section 1(1)(b)(i) of the Sex Discrimination Act therefore cannot safely be reconstructed from this transcript.
2. Costs. The respondent sought the costs of the appeal. The appellant did not contest that application, and the court ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.
3. Leave to appeal refused. The appellant submitted that the proceedings raised important questions concerning sex discrimination, including the relevance under section 1(1)(b)(i) of the Sex Discrimination Act of the proportions of persons who could, rather than could not, comply with a requirement or condition. The court accepted that the proposed appeal was not frivolous and recognised that the House of Lords might wish to entertain it. It nevertheless refused leave, considering that the decision whether to hear the matter should be left to the House of Lords upon a direct petition.

1. Court of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed unanimously, with costs. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords was refused.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal: The appeal from the Industrial Tribunal was dismissed. The citation and terms of the decision are not stated in the supplied text.
3. Industrial Tribunal: London Underground’s challenge was rejected. Further details are not stated in the supplied text.