header-logo header-logo

Joint account?

Malcolm Keen considers apportionment in discrimination claims

Two recent Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) decisions have cast doubt on previous authority relating to joint tortfeasors, and provided guidance relevant not only to discrimination claims but also to tort more generally. In London Borough of Hackney v Sivanandan [2011] IRLR 740, the claimant successfully brought claims for sex and race discrimination against a race relations body. The race relations body and the local authority (with which it worked) were held vicariously liable. The respondents fell into two groups:

  • those associated with the race relations body; and
  • the local authority and its employee.

A remedy hearing decided that liability should be apportioned between the local authority employee and the other respondents. The award against the local authority employee should be limited to £1,250 in respect of injury to the claimant’s feelings.

In relation to the other respondents, the tribunal proceeded on the basis that it had a discretion whether to apportion liability between the local authority and the race relations body respondents, or to make a joint and several award—in which each respondent

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll