- Cited — City of London Police v Geldart 2021-04-28
“…y issue is also well-established. The most authoritative statement is in para. 64 of the judgment of Lady Hale in R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728, (―the Jewish Free School case‖). The ultimate question is ―what caused the treatment in question?‖. But, as Lord Nicholls observed at para. 29 of his speech i…”
- Cited — Page v Lord Chancellor & Anor 2021-02-26
“…] 1 AC 501 and includes the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court in R (E) v Governing Body of the JFS (“the Jewish Free School case”) [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728, and the decision of the EAT (myself presiding) in Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] UKEAT 0447/08, [2009] ICR 1450 (which I mention only because it is reli…”
- Cited — Page v Lord Chancellor & Anor 2021-02-26
“…nt of the Claimant with their ‘motivation’ (EAT [50] et seq). The distinction between ‘reason’ and ‘motive’ is essential in discrimination law: see R (E) v JFS [2010] 2 AC 728; Amnesty International v Ahmed [2009] UKEAT 0447/08. A benign motive for detrimental treatment is no defence to a claim for direct discrimination or victimisat…”
- Cited — Page v Lord Chancellor & Anor 2021-02-26
“… Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2000] 1 AC 501, which was endorsed by the majority in the Supreme Court in the Jewish Free School case, [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728. Terminology can be tricky in this area. At p. 512A Lord Nicholls uses the terminology of the discriminator being ‘motivated’ by the protected characteristic, …”
- Cited — Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 2021-02-26
“…] 1 AC 501 and includes the reasoning of the majority in the Supreme Court in R (E) v Governing Body of the JFS (“the Jewish Free School case”) [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728. The cases make it clear that although the relevant mental processes are sometimes referred to as what “motivates” the putative discriminator they do not inclu…”
- Cited — Dunn v The Secretary of State for Justice & Anor 2018-09-04
“…w generally. The most recent authoritative exposition is in the judgments of the majority in the Supreme Court in R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728: see in particular per Lady Hale at paras. 62-64 (pp. 759-760).…”
- Cited — Unite the Union v Nailard 2018-05-24
“…ever I believe it to be to the same effect as the approach of the majority in the decision of the Supreme Court in R (E) v Governors of the JFS [2009] UKSC 15, [2010] 2 AC 728 – see in particular paras. 62-64 of the judgment of Lady Hale (pp. 759-760). That is unsurprising because both I and the Supreme Court based ourselves on the r…”
- Cited — Mruke v Khan 2018-02-23
“…Ms Monaghan submits that this approach is contrary to fundamental principles of discrimination law: see e.g. R (E) v Governing Body of JFS [2009] UKSC 15; [2010] 2 AC 728, at paras. 13-23 (Lord Phillips PSC). In that judgment, which set out those principles by reference to well-known authorities, Lord Phillips made it clear that…”