Ministry of Defence v Armstrong
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Neutral Citation | [2004] UKEAT 0551_03_2101 |
| Date | 2004 |
| Year | 2004 |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
11 cases
-
McPolin vs Department of Finance
...case and the man’s; …. The Relevant Legal Principles relating to the section 1(3) defence 14. In Ministry of Defence –v- Armstrong (2004) IRLR 672 EAT, at paragraph 32, Cox J stated:- “The provisions of Section 1(3) have been considered by the appellate courts on many occasions over the yea......
-
McLaughlin vs University of Ulster
...unless the reason is tainted by sex discrimination (usually indirect discrimination).12 2. In Ministry of Defence v Armstrong and others [2004] IRLR 672 Cox J stated that: “in approaching these issues technicalities should be eschewed. The fundamental question for the tribunal is whether th......
-
Ms S Haq and Others v The Audit Commission
...equal pay legislation and case law, is broader than that which applies under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, as amended: Ministry of Defence v. Armstrong [2004] IRLR 672 at [36] and at [46] where Mrs Justice Cox explained the operation of the "causative link" test applied by s.1(3) in an o......
-
Grundy v British Airways Plc
...in Rutherford (No2) to see why. 28 Possibly the most helpful exegesis we have been shown is that of Cox J in the EAT decision in Armstrong v Ministry of Defence [2004] IRLR 672. Having explained why, in the EAT's judgment, “the concept of indirect discrimination under the Equal Pay Act, whe......
Request a trial to view additional results