This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Harrods v Remick [1998] ICR 156

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 17:57

Judgement for the case Harrods v Remick

Table Of Contents

  • Under s.7 RRA 1976 it was unlawful to discriminate on race against any person who worked “for” the discriminator.

  • Plaintiff was employed by a company who had a stall in Harrods. Under this arrangement all stall workers had to be approved by Harrods and Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff 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 (Plaintiff’s employer) paid money to Harrods based on how much it sold.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Harrods v Remick

Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
273 purchased

Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Labour Law Notes
1,003 total pages
273 purchased

Labour Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge...