Michele Robinson v Michael Harris & Ors

Section 47 of the Equality Act 2010 is a jurisdictional gateway which extends the Act’s protection to self-employed barristers. It does not create separate tests for discrimination, harassment or victimisation. Once the gateway is engaged, those claims are determined under the relevant substantive provisions of the Act.

An Employment Tribunal’s reasons must be read fairly and as a whole. A superfluous reference to an inapplicable statutory provision does not establish an error of law where the findings, analysis and outcome show that the Tribunal understood and determined the actual complaints.

A self-employed barrister brought claims of race discrimination, harassment and victimisation against her chambers, two clerks and members of its management committee. The claims concerned requests for repayment of a brief fee, the handling of direct-access concerns and grievance arrangements, and an alleged withholding of work after she brought Employment Tribunal proceedings.

The Central London Employment Tribunal dismissed all claims in a unanimous judgment dated 19 January 2023. At the EAT sift, two grounds proceeded: that the Tribunal had failed to account for the appellant’s self-employed status under section 47 of the Equality Act 2010, and that its citation of section 39 showed that it had treated her as an employee.

1. Appeal dismissed. Section 47 of the Equality Act 2010 is the jurisdictional gateway through which a self-employed barrister may invoke the Act’s protections. It does not prescribe distinct rules for deciding whether conduct is discriminatory, harassing or victimising.
2. The Tribunal had expressly recognised that the claims were brought through section 47. There had been no dispute that the provision was engaged or that the Tribunal had jurisdiction. It correctly determined the merits by applying the definitions in sections 13, 26 and 27 to the acts alleged and the facts it found.
3. The appellant’s argument that the Tribunal had failed to decide whether she suffered detriments under section 47 misunderstood the statutory structure. The Tribunal identified the alleged detriments and rejected the claims because no unlawful discrimination, harassment or victimisation had been established. Its factual conclusions disclosed no error of law.
4. The Tribunal’s quotation of section 39 was superfluous. However, its reasons contained no indication that it thought the appellant was an employee, that the claims concerned dismissal, or that it decided any issue on that basis. Reading the reasons fairly and as a whole, in accordance with DPP Law Limited v. Greenberg 2021 IRLR 1016, the isolated reference had no bearing on the analysis or result.

• Employment Appeal Tribunal: dismissed the appeal in [2026] EAT 71.
• Employment Tribunal at Central London: on 19 January 2023, unanimously dismissed the appellant’s complaints of discrimination, harassment and victimisation.