Gurkha soldiers - different treatment from rest of British Army - discrimination on ground of national origin and breach of convention rights not established

R (Purja and others) v Ministry of Defence: CA (Lords Justice Simon Brown, Chadwick and Rix): 9 October 2003

The claimants were ex-British Army Gurkha pensioners.

In accordance with their terms of service with the defendant, they had received less pay during long leaves in Nepal and had less opportunity for accompanied service than other British soldiers, and now enjoyed less pension rights.

The claimants sought judicial review of the terms of service on the ground of unlawful discrimination contrary to article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as scheduled to the Human Rights Act 1998.

Mr Justice Sullivan dismissed the claim.

The claimants appealed.

Nicholas Blake QC, Kate Cook and Aileen McColgan (instructed by Public Interest Lawyers, Birmingham) for the claimants; Rabinder Singh QC and Keith Morton (instructed by Treasury Solicitor) for the defendant.

Held, dismissing the appeal (Lord Justice Rix dissenting), that Gurkha soldiers were not in a position analogous to that of the serviceman with whom the claimants sought to compare themselves, not only with regard to pension rights and pay during long leaves but also with regard to accompanied service; and that, therefore, article 14 did not apply.

(WLR)

Race - employment - award for injury to feelings together with aggravated damages for single direct incident appropriate

British Telecommunications plc v Reid: CA (Lords Justice Ward, Latham and Keene): 6 October 2003

The employee, of black African Caribbean origin had, since 1997, been employed by the employer.

He was promoted and transferred to a technical division where he worked shifts with two other employees.

The three did not make a happy team and the employment tribunal found proved a single allegation of discriminatory conduct, that one of the other two members of the team had said to the employee 'I will get someone to put you back in your cage'.

The tribunal held the employer liable by virtue of section 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and awarded the employee 6,000 for injury to feelings and 2,000 aggravated damages.

The award was upheld by the Employment Appeal Tribunal.

The employer appealed against the amount of the award.

Philip Thornton (instructed by British Telecommunications Group Legal Services, Milton Keynes) for the employer.

The employee did not appear and was not represented.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that applying the guidelines laid down in Vento v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2003] ICR 318, and Prison Service v Johnson [1997] ICR 275, the employment tribunal's award was neither excessive nor wrong in principle, and it had been entitled to find circumstances making an additional award for aggravated damages appropriate.