Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd & Ors

The Equality Act 2010 allocates discrimination claims between distinct jurisdictions. Claims under Part 5 fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employment tribunal, while education claims under Part 6 fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court. Section 54(4)(c) creates a binary exclusion: a body that is the governing body of a university within section 91 is not also a qualifications body under section 53. It need not be divided between university and qualifications-body functions. Consequently, a university student’s discrimination claim concerning education belongs in the county court, even where the institution’s courses facilitate a professional qualification. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred on the employment tribunal by consent.

The appellant, a student undertaking an LLM in Professional Legal Practice, brought discrimination claims against the University of Law Ltd and six members of staff. The Employment Tribunal struck out the claim on 13 July 2018, holding that the institution was a university and that the county court, rather than the employment tribunal, had jurisdiction. The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal under rule 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993, finding no reasonably arguable question of law. The appeal to the Court of Appeal concerned whether section 54(4) permitted the respondent to be both a university and a qualifications body, and which court therefore had jurisdiction.

Appeal dismissed. Bean LJ gave the leading judgment, with Asplin and Lewis LJJ agreeing. The court also refused the appellant’s application for anonymity and ordered him to pay the respondents’ costs of £5,000 plus VAT.

1. A lower-court anonymity order did not bind the Court of Appeal. An anonymity order required a fresh application, and the principle of open justice could be displaced only in an exceptional case established on clear and cogent grounds. Those grounds were not established.
2. The Equality Act 2010 separates discrimination jurisdiction into distinct statutory compartments. Employment discrimination under Part 5 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employment tribunal by section 120. Education discrimination under Part 6 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the county court by section 114(1). An employment tribunal cannot hear a claim outside its jurisdiction, and consent cannot confer jurisdiction.
3. Sections 53 and 54 establish the qualifications-body regime, while section 91 governs discrimination by the responsible body of a university or other specified educational institution. The words in so far as in section 54(4) do not require a university to be divided between university and qualifications-body functions where section 54(4)(c) applies. In that context the choice is binary: the body is either the governing body of an institution to which section 91 applies or it is not. The former status displaces qualifications-body status.
4. The evidence, including the respondent’s degree-awarding powers, approval to use university title, inclusion in the register of higher education providers and subsequent Privy Council order, established that the University of Law Ltd was a university within sections 54 and 91. The appellant’s claim therefore fell within the education provisions and could be brought only in the county court.
5. Burke v The College of Law and Solicitors Regulation Authority [2012] EWCA Civ 37 did not determine the issue because the jurisdiction point had not been raised and the Equality Act 2010 had not then been enacted. Blackwood v Birmingham and Solihull Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust [2016] ICR 903 concerned the different statutory scheme for work placements. The insurance-jurisdiction decision in Charman v WOC Offshore DV [1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep 378; [1993] 2 Lloyd's Rep 551 arose in an entirely different context and did not assist.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division) — [2020] EWCA Civ 1526: appeal dismissed; anonymity refused; costs ordered.
2. Employment Appeal Tribunal — UKEATPA/0734/18/JOJ: appeal dismissed under rule 3(10) of the Employment Appeal Tribunal Rules 1993.
3. Employment Tribunal — decision dated 13 July 2018: claim struck out because the employment tribunal lacked jurisdiction.