Marshall v Southampton and South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (no.2) [1993] 4 All ER 586

• This related to the case of Marshall no.1 (see above under “General Reading”).

• The Tribunal had awarded, in compliance with an EC directive, a payment including interest.

• The HL referred to the ECJ the questions of whether:

  1. A victim of sex discrimination was entitled to full compensation including interest and

  2. Whether the victim of sex discrimination was entitled to challenge the applicability of UK law, which limited compensation and therefore was against the directive.

• ECJ said that limits to compensation go against the meaning of the directive, whose objective is the FULL compensation of unequal treatment, while interest must be payable since full compensation needs to take into account the passage of time.

  • Similarly, because of direct vertical effect, it was possible for a victim to rely on rights passed down from the directive before the national courts.

• Thus conflicting national laws had to be disapplied. 

RELATED CASES

• Marshall v Health Authority (No. 1)

• 152/84 Marshall

• C- 443/98 Unilever Italia v Central Food

• Defrenne v Sabena (No 2)

• Case C-194/94 CIA Security International SA v Signalson SA and Securitel SPRL

• C-188/89 Foster v British Gas

• C-91/92 Faccini Dori v Recreb