DiscriminationAiding unlawful acts - council racially discriminating against gypsies after receiving information from police - police officers not aiding council to do unlawful actHallam and another v Avery and another: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Millett): 22 March 2001The council hired premises to the claimants, one of whom was a gypsy, for a wedding reception.

Having received information, albeit inaccurate, from police officers that it might be a 'gypsy wedding' which large numbers might attend with the risk of serious problems of public disorder, the council imposed additional conditions on the hiring.

The claimants, treating the agreement as repudiated, brought proceedings against the council in which they obtained damages for racial discrimination.

They also claimed damages against the police on the basis that the officers had aided the council, contrary to section 33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976, to do the discriminatory act.

The judge rejected that claim.

The Court of Appeal [2000] Gazette, 7 January 23; [2000] 1 WLR 966 dismissed the claimant's appeal on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the officers had known that the council would treat the claimants unlawfully.Robin Allen QC and Jane McNeill (instructed by Principal Litigation Officer, Commission for Racial Equality) for the claimants.

Jeffrey Burke QC and David H Fletcher (instructed by County Solicitor, Gloucestershire County Council, Gloucester) for the officers.Held, dismissing the appeal, that, for the purposes of s33(1), the act done by the council and made unlawful by the Act was to deny the claimants, on the ground of their being gypsies, use of the premises on the same terms as would have been available to non-gypsies and thereby to treat them less favourably on racial grounds; that although the officers, adopting a properly co-operative attitude to the council, had provided the information to alert it to a serious potential disorder problem, neither officer had been party to or involved in the council's decision and since the council could have responded lawfully to the information the claimants had failed to show that the officers had aided it, within section 33(1), to do the unlawful act; and that, accordingly, the judge's decision could not be impugned.

Student union officers expelled as university members and dismissed by union - officers alleging university knowingly aiding union's racially discriminatory act - claim not to be struck outAnyanwu and Another v South Bank Student Union and Another: HL (Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Millett): 22 March 2001The applicants were students of the university and salaried officials of the union.

The university expelled them, excluding them from its premises, and the union treated their employment contracts as ended.

They unsuccessfully challenged the university's decision by way of judicial review and subsequently complained to an industrial tribunal that the university had aided the union to discriminate against them contrary to section 33(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976.

The claims were struck out by the tribunal as an abuse of process by reason of the failure of the judicial review proceedings but were reinstated by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The Court of Appeal [1999] Gazette, 10 November 34; [2000] ICR 221 allowed the university's appeal, holding that as it had acted as prime mover, by expelling the applicants and so bringing about their dismissal, it had not 'aided' the union within the meaning of section 33(1) of the Act.

The applicants appealed.Laura Cox QC and Thomas Kibling (instructed by Charles Russell) for the applicants.

David Bean QC and Thomas Linden (instructed by Bretherton Price Elgoods, Cheltenham) for the university.

Robin Allen QC and Karon Monaghan (instructed by solicitor, Commission for Racial Equality) for the Commission for Racial Equality.Held, allowing the appeal, that section 33(1) was to be construed purposefully in its statutory context to prevent discriminatory acts made unlawful by the 1976 Act; that 'aids' was a familiar word in everyday use, without technical or special meaning, and connoting the help, whether or not substantial and productive, given by one person to another; that the section required identification of an act done by the university which helped the union to do the allegedly unlawful act of dismissing the applicants on racially discriminatory grounds; and that, having regard to the allegations raised, it was appropriate that the facts should be investigated by the tribunal to which the matter would therefore be remitted.