Tuesday, 13 May 2003

New EAT Decision - another Liversidge case

[A job advertisement for Whittles, Manchester, appears at the end of this bulletin]

Chief Constable of Kent County Constabulary v Baskerville (HHJ McMullen, 14/4/03)
Another decision on the mess created by the Liversidge and McGlennon series of cases, holding that chief constables are not vicariously liable for acts of harassment by one police officer upon another, but may be liable for discrimination in the discharge of administrative or management functions carried out by superior officers on behalf of the chief constable.

This case repeats that distinction but emphsises that it will normally be (a) inappropriate to strike out these cases before hearing the evidence, and (b) will normally be appropriate to allow amendments to include a Burton v De Vere argument.

Interestingly, whilst not expressly overruling this aspect of McGlennon, the EAT casts doubt upon its previous decision that the Equal Treatment Directive cannot be used as an interpretative tool in giving a purposive approach to construing the relevant aspects of the SDA 1975.

For further information on the Liversidge series of cases, see bulletins da= ted 25/7/02 and 11/12/02.

No comments: