How many times has [1994] ICR 112 been cited?

[1994] ICR 112 is cited by 3 judgment(s) in this dataset.

[1994] ICR 112

· cited by 3 · influence score 13/100

Is it still good law? No negative treatment found in this dataset — it has been cited without being doubted or overruled here.

How to cite

[1994] ICR 112

Neutral citation format (OSCOLA). Always confirm against the official judgment.

Cited · 3

Cited — The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury 2021-11-24
“…C-127/92, [1994] ICR 112, the CJEU…”
Cited — McNeil & Ors v Revenue And Customs 2019-07-03
“…Health Authority C-127/92, [1994] ICR 112, the European Court of Justice held that prima facie indirect discrimination could be found in a case where there is no identifiable “barrier” but where there …”
Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…the disadvantage had resulted from the application of a PCP. Rather it was a case like the well-known case of Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority Case C-127/92 [1994] ICR 112 where one group was treated less favourably than another but as the result of entirely separate pay arrangements relating to each group.…”