Hampshire Constabulary & Anor v Bullale

On an application for summary judgment in a discrimination claim, the court must keep separate two questions: whether the claimant was treated less favourably, and whether that treatment was because of race. The claimant must show a realistic prospect of proving actual less favourable treatment. Allegations of racism, complaints made by the claimant, evidential inconsistencies, or the absence of answers to questions do not, without more, establish that prospect. Material which might become available at trial is not generally sufficient by itself to justify allowing a claim to proceed. Where proposed disclosure contains no material probative of racial discrimination, it cannot support the claim.

The claimant, suing as personal representative of the estate of Ali Farah Bullaleh, brought discrimination claims against the Chief Constable of Hampshire Constabulary and the South Central Ambulance Service NHS Trust. The claims arose from police and ambulance attendance on Mr Bullaleh shortly before his death.

The Central London County Court, sitting with assessors, dismissed the defendants’ applications to strike out the claims or obtain summary judgment. The defendants appealed, arguing that the claimant had no realistic prospect of proving less favourable treatment on racial grounds and that the lower court had conflated the treatment and causation questions.

1. Appeals allowed. The claims against both defendants were dismissed.
2. The lower court had adopted an incorrect approach to the summary judgment applications. It should have considered separately whether the claimant had a realistic prospect of proving less favourable treatment and whether any such treatment was on racial grounds. The claimant’s ability to prove facts at trial did not answer that objection.
3. As against the Ambulance Service, the evidence showed that the attendant examined Mr Bullaleh for injuries and stopped when asked not to touch him. The treatment had not been shown to be less favourable.
4. The same conclusion applied to the police officers. The available evidence did not establish less favourable treatment, and no further disclosure had been identified which would assist the claim. The fact that Mr Bullaleh made allegations of racism, inconsistencies in witness statements, allegations not put to witnesses at the inquest, and the officers’ refusal to answer IPCC questions did not, without more, provide a proper basis for concluding that the claims had a realistic prospect of success.
5. The proposed disciplinary records were not disclosable because no disciplinary proceedings containing material probative of racism had been brought against the officers: O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales [2005] 2 AC 534.

• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Appeals from the Central London County Court allowed. The claims against both defendants were dismissed.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Faber and assessors dismissed the defendants’ applications to strike out the claims or for summary judgment.