Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Harrods v Remick

[1998] ICR 156

Case summary last updated at 20/02/2020 19:22 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case Harrods v Remick

Under s.7 RRA 1976 it was unlawful to discriminate on race against any person who worked “for” the discriminator. P was employed by a company who had a stall in Harrods. Under this arrangement all stall workers had to be approved by Harrods and P was not. As a result she was sacked by her company. She alleged racial discrimination against Harrods. CA accepted that she did ‘work for’ Harrods under s.7.
Sir Richard Scott: The point of s.7 is to give a remedy to those who would not otherwise have one i.e. non-employees. Here P clearly did work ‘for’ Harrods, despite not being employed by them: She worked in their store, was subject to their rules and regulations (code of conduct etc), while the licensee (P’s employer) paid money to Harrods based on how much it sold.

Harrods v Remick crops up in following areas of law