- Cited — City of London Police v Geldart 2021-04-28
“… essentially a single question. The locus classicus is paras. 7-11 of the speech of Lord Nicholls in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337. At para. 8, having identified those two questions, he says:…”
- Cited — Page v NHS Trust Development Authority 2021-02-26
“… act complained of: see the very well-known passage at paras. 8-13 of the speech of Lord Nicholls in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337. Aylott says nothing to the contrary. In any event, even if the Tribunal had undertaken the exercise the correct comparator would not have been…”
- Cited — HMRC v SSE Generation Ltd 2021-02-01
“… as it was in this case, the articles stored were not obstructions on the floor for this purpose. In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] 2 ALL ER 26, the issue was the meaning of the word ‘detriment’ in an anti-discrimination provision which made it unlawful for a person to discriminate …”
- Considered — Fratila & Anor v Secretary of State for Works and Pensions & Anor 2020-12-18
“…omestic law concepts to consider whether a comparator might assist in determining this case, compare Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11; [2003] 2 All ER 26 at paragraph 7, I have not been able to identify any comparator which would assist. Claimants for universal credit who are British national…”
- Cited — Tabidi v British Broadcasting Corporation 2020-06-11
“…out that definition which are particularly relevant for our purposes emerge from the leading case of Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337:…”
- Cited — Tiplady v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council 2019-12-11
“…In Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2013] ICR 337, the applicant, who was a Chief Inspector in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, claimed that she had been subjected to a detriment because she was …”
- Cited — Base Childrenswear Ltd v Otshudi 2019-10-09
“…8) and Peter Gibson LJ at para. 43 (p. 129); and also, to similar effect, Lord Rodger’s statement in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337, that “a tribunal cannot draw inferences from thin air” – see para. 144 (p. 384D). He submitted that there was nothing in the facts found here …”
- Followed — Chief Constable of Norfolk v Coffey 2019-06-21
“…er will normally follow. That point was first and most authoritatively made by the House of Lords in Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337, (see in particular per Lord Nicholls at paras. 11-12 (p. 342 B-D)); and in fact Mr Feeny told us that in his submissions to the ET he reminded…”
- Cited — Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd (Rev 2) 2019-05-24
“…e no material difference between the circumstances relating to each case. Ms Omambala referred us to Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11, [2003] ICR 337, Lockwood v Department of Work and Pensions [2013] EWCA Civ 1195 [2014] 1 All ER 250 and R (Coll) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] UKSC …”
- Cited — Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi 2019-01-23
“…rejected. It is well established that the reason must be that of the actual decision maker: see e.g. Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11; [2003] ICR 337 para. 7 per Lord Nicholls. I see force in the claimant’s argument that had there been sufficient facts to enable the claimant to discharge the …”
- Cited — Mruke v Khan 2018-02-23
“…Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] UKHL 11; [2003] ICR 337.…”