Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.

X

R v Employment Secretary, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission

[1995] 1 AC 1

Case summary last updated at 08/01/2020 14:15 by the Oxbridge Notes in-house law team.

Judgement for the case R v Employment Secretary, ex parte Equal Opportunities Commission

P was arguing that legislation in the UK was incompatible with directly effective EC directives that prohibited indirect gender discrimination. HL found for P, saying that it had “sufficient interest”. The commission, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 had a statutory duty to work towards the elimination of discrimination, giving it locus. NB the other plaintiff here was an individual worker, Mrs. Day. HL refused her standing because she already had a private law claim against her employers at industrial tribunal, which she had already made, she could not also seek JR. See Cane’s criticism
 
Lord Keith: “The determination of this issue turns essentially upon a consideration of the statutory duties and public law role of the E.O.C.”

Have you seen Oxbridge Notes' best Administrative 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
Administrative Law Notes

Administrative Law Notes >>