Scott v London Borough Of Hillingdon

Permission to appeal was granted in a racial discrimination and victimisation claim. The court considered that the applicant’s case was arguable, including the proposed inference that he had been treated less favourably because he was regarded as a trouble-maker after bringing discrimination proceedings against another local authority. The court did not determine the merits of the discrimination claims or finally resolve the proper application of the guidance in King v The Great Britain China Centre.

Mr Scott brought claims against the London Borough of Hillingdon under the Race Relations Act 1976, alleging direct racial discrimination and victimisation after he was excluded from a re-advertised managerial appointment. An Industrial Tribunal upheld findings of less favourable treatment and victimisation, relying on an inference that he had been targeted because he had brought a race discrimination claim against a neighbouring authority.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal considered that his case depended on knowledge by a voting councillor, rather than mere suspicion by an officer. The Court of Appeal considered that this did not accurately capture the applicant’s case and granted permission to appeal.

1. Permission granted. Lord Justice Henry was persuaded that permission to appeal should be granted.
2. The Industrial Tribunal had found that Hillingdon treated Mr Scott less favourably than other candidates and had rejected Hillingdon’s explanation as entirely unsatisfactory. It nevertheless concluded that the treatment was not attributable to race.
3. The Tribunal inferred, from the absence of another explanation and the surrounding facts, that Mr Scott had been prevented from reapplying because he was regarded as a trouble-maker who had brought a race discrimination claim against a neighbouring authority.
4. The proposed appeal was arguable. The court noted that the Employment Appeal Tribunal had treated the case as depending on actual knowledge by a councillor, whereas the applicant maintained that his case was not so limited and relied on an inference involving knowledge or suspicion by officers or members.
5. The order granting permission did not determine the substantive discrimination or victimisation claims.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal granted from the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
• Employment Appeal Tribunal: The judgment is described as having treated the applicant’s case as depending on actual knowledge by a voting councillor, rather than suspicion by an officer.
• Industrial Tribunal: Found less favourable treatment and victimisation, but concluded that the less favourable treatment was not attributable to race and inferred that it resulted from the applicant being regarded as a trouble-maker.