Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

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.

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Labour Law study materials?

Our law notes have been a popular underground sensation for 10 years:

  • Written by Oxford & Cambridge prize-winning graduates
  • Includes copious adademic commentary in summary form
  • Concise structure relating cases and statutes into an easy-to-remember whole
  • Covers all major cases for LLB exams
  • Satisfaction guaranteed refund policy
  • Recently updated
Labour Law Notes

Labour Law Notes >>