- Cited — The Motherhood Plan (R on the application of) v HM Treasury 2021-11-24
“…[2017] UKSC 27, [2017] ICR 640,…”
- Cited — Heskett v Secretary of State for Justice (Rev 1) 2020-11-11
“…It will be seen that both the ET and the EAT referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Naeem v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] ICR 640. That case concerned what Lady Hale, with whom the other members of the Court agreed, called “a system in transition”. At para. 47 of her judgment she said:…”
- Cited — Gray v Mulberry Company (Design) Ltd 2019-10-17
“…acteristic than persons not possessing it” (see CHEZ Judgment at [101] and the similar approach of Baroness Hale DPSC in Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] ICR 640 at [27]); or, to put it another way, the question is whether the apparently neutral PCP puts one group at a comparative disadvantage to the other. Unsurprising…”
- Cited — Owen v AMEC Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd & Anor 2019-05-14
“…In the judgment in Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27; [2017] ICR 640 Baroness Hale said, at para. 17:…”
- Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…e mass of evidence which there was before the tribunal for that of the employment judge. Moreover, as Lady Hale observed in Essop v Home Office [2017] UKSC 27; [2017] ICR 640, para 47, we must be able to detect an error of law. The quotations we have, at some length, made from the judgment of the employment tribunal in the previous …”
- Considered — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“… Essop, and whilst it affirmed the decision in Naeem, it did so on different grounds: Essop v Home Office; Naeem v Secretary of State forJustice[2017] UKSC 27; [2017] ICR 640. We consider this judgment in some detail below. Suffice it to say that Sir Alan held that in his view the decision of Lady Hale established that there was no …”
- Cited — The Lord Chancellor & Anor v McCloud & Ors 2018-12-20
“…to know, let alone prove, why the PCP disadvantaged the group. The Supreme Court appears, however, to have understood that the Court of Appeal did so hold (see [2017] ICR 640, at 646F) and rejected the analysis that it so attributed to it, although the outcome of the decision of the Supreme Court was in fact substantially the same. …”