Mrs S Solomon v (1) University of Hertfordshire (2) Paul Hammond
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | David Richardson,Mr P M Hunter,Mr P L C Pagliari |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0258/18/DA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Practice,Procedure,Sex Discrimination,Procedure - Costs,Sex Discrimination - Burden of proof,Not landmark |
| Date | 29 October 2019 |
| Published date | 30 October 2019 |
Copyright 2019
Appeal No. UKEAT/0258/18/DA
UKEAT/0066/19/DA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 18 & 19 June 2019
Judgment handed down on 29 October 2019
Before
HIS HONOUR DAVID RICHARDSON
MR P.M. HUNTER
MR P.L.C. PAGLIARI
MRS S SOLOMON APPELLANT
(1) UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE
(2) PAUL HAMMOND RESPONDENTS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0258/18/DA
UKEAT/0066/19/DA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant
MR CHRISTIAN AMEADAH
(The Appellant’s husband)
and
MRS SHARMAIN SOLOMON
(The Appellant in Person)
For the Respondents
MR DANIEL DYAL
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Pinsent Masons LLP
3 Hardman Street
Manchester
M3 3AU
UKEAT/0258/18/DA
UKEAT/0066/19/DA
SUMMARY
SEX DISCRIMINATION – BURDEN OF PROOF
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - COSTS
The liability judgment
The ET did not err in law in dismissing the Claimant’s complaints of unlawful discrimination,
victimisation and ha rassment. In one respect – relating to t he ET’s reasoning concerning the
burden of proof – the EAT’s decision is by a majority, Mr Hunter dissenting – see paragraphs 61-
76.
The costs judgment
The ET erred in law in its approach to the question of costs. In determining whether the
Claimant’s conduct (for example in proceeding with the litigation rather than accepting offers)
was unreasonable it should not have substituted its own view but should rather have asked
whether her conduct was within or outside the range of reasonable responses in the circumstances.
To continue reading
Request your trial