The Reverend Jonathan Gould v St John's Downshire Hill
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Linden,Ms Gloria Mills,Mr Anthony Stanworth |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0002/20/BA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Marriage,Civil Partnership,Unfair Dismissal,Not landmark |
| Date | 05 June 2020 |
| Published date | 09 June 2020 |
Copyright 2020
Appeal No. UKEAT/0002/20/BA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 22 May 2020
Judgement handed down on 05 June 2020
Before
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE LINDEN
MS GLORIA MILLS
MR ANTONY STANWORTH
THE REVEREND JONATHAN GOULD APPELLANT
ST JOHN’S DOWNSHIRE HILL RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________________
UKEAT0002/20/BA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant Ms KARON MONAGHAN QC
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Boodle Hatfield LLP
240 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NW
For the Respondent Mr THOMAS CORDREY
(Counsel)
Instructed by:
DWF Law LLP
1 Scott Place
2 Hardman Street
Manchester M3 3AA
UKEAT/0002/20/BA
SUMMARY
UNFAIR DISMISSAL
MARRIAGE AND CIVIL PARTNERSHIP
The vicar of an evangelical Christian church, who was dismissed in August 2016, alleged that his
dismissal was because of the breakdown of his marriage and that his dismissal amounted to
marriage discrimination and was unfair. The Employment Tribunal found, on the evidence, that
the reason for dismissal was a loss of trust and confidence in him. Although the breakdown of his
marriage had contributed to the loss of trust and confidence, it was part of the background or
context rather than part of the reason for dismissal: The Respondent’s concern, insofar as it related
to marital breakdown, was with his behaviour in the context of that breakdown rather than a moral
or religious belief that a minister whose marriage brea ks down cannot continue to serve. The
marriage discrimination claim therefore failed. His dismissal was also fair.
Held: although the Claimant’s discrimination claim might have succeeded if the decision to
dismiss him had been significantly influenced by a belief that a minister cannot continue to serve
if their marriage breaks down, or if they would not have been dismissed in the same circumstances
had they not been married, the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to find as a fact that this
was not what had happened. As a matter law, therefore, this was not a case of marriage
discrimination. The appeal against the finding that the dismissal was fair was premised on there
being an error of law in relation to the discrimination claim and it therefore also failed.
To continue reading
Request your trial