Discrimination Law and the Ebb and Flow of Indirect Effect in Britain

What is it about?

Strained judicial interpretation of British discrimination law is not new; some of the leading House of Lords cases on the European Union law doctrine of Indirect Effect have concerned discrimination law. The interpretative obligation, to read national law in line with EU law, has seen words read in and like being treated with like according to changing mores. However, the disability discrimination case of EBR Attridge Law v Coleman [2010] I.C.R. 242 saw an entire sub-section being read in by an Employment Appeal Tribunal. This article briefly reviews the House of Lords’ approach in earlier cases, primarily through the prism of discrimination law, and then asks, following more recent Employment Appeal Tribunal cases concerning pregnancy discrimination and the protection from victimisation within the Equality Act 2010, whether the high-water mark for judicial re-writing has been reached in Britain and whether compliance with European law can better be attained in other ways.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

The piece discusses the different approaches in, among cases, Kulikaoskas v MacDuff Shellfish & Ors [2011] ICR 48, Rowstock v Ltd v Jessemey [2012] UKEAT 0112_12_0503 (and on app at [2014] ICR 550) and Akwiwu & Anor v Onu [2013] UKEAT 0283_12_0105.