Race and religious discrimination claim and appeal dismissed where it was found that there was no basis to the allegations. Claimant referred to the Attorney General for the possibility of a restriction of proceedings application.

There was significant background to this decision. The claimant had been subject to a restriction of proceedings order in England and Wales following at least 40 claims brought by the claimant alleging racial discrimination against academic institutions. There were ‘wanton allegations of bias and racism against lawyers, Tribunal staff and Tribunal members’. It was also found that the claimant had engaged in delaying and diversionary tactics in the cases he had brought previously.

Similar ‘echoes’ were found here. The appeal was first listed for review in October 2024 and the day before the claimant indicated he had suffered a family bereavement and he would be unable to attend. The respondent proposed that a remote review hearing be convened and the claimant stated it was not appropriate to list a review by way of a remote hearing. The directions were issued administratively and the hearing was scheduled for 4th March 2025.  The claimant sought to set aside the directions and invited the Lady Chief Justice to recuse herself with the statement having allegations of bias and discrimination by members of the ‘Roman Catholic judiciary.’ This was repeated again before a rescheduled interlocutory hearing. The claimant outlined medical issues and the hearing date was vacated with a relist of 10th April 2025. A further medical note was received stating that the claimant was awaiting an MRI and hearing aid and he would be unable to take part in court hearings. There was no reason given for the stated opinion and it was wholly unclear why an MRI or hearing aid would render the claimant unable to participate. Again, when the adjournment was refused, the claimant complained about ‘Roman Catholic racists’. 

The factual background of the case related to the claimant’s failed application for a job at the respondent.  He was found not to have met the criterion to have a publication record extensive enough for inclusion in REF2021. There were three candidates shortlisted (one white British Protestant, one Chinese of no religion and one other Asian of no religion). The claimant said it was a ‘typical ploy of the respondent to inject a white RC or Protestant’. The claimant was unsuccessful at Tribunal and appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The claimant did not attend the Court of Appeal hearing and the decision was reached on the papers. The Court of Appeal outlined the paragraph of the Tribunal decision outlining the task:

“The task of the tribunal in this case included assessing the likelihood of the claimant’s case that the respondent instructed or expected the shortlisting panel to deliberately sideline an applicant, who otherwise might be better qualified and suitable to meet the rigorous requirements of the role than those selected, tainted by being on the basis of their race or religion, or perceived religion. Alternatively, that such action by the members of the selection panel was because of an inherent predisposition of sufficient of its members to discriminate, unconsciously and collectively to do so.’ 

The Court of Appeal found that the process taken by the respondent was methodical and transparent. They also found that there was a cogent audit trail of the application criteria and the policies of the respondent had been followed.  For that reason, the claimant’s claim was dismissed. The appeal was also dismissed with the Court of Appeal stating that the claimant had made scurrilous and wholly unfounded allegations against the respondent’s legal advisors, employment judges and judges of this court. The claims were all rejected.  

Additionally – the Court of Appeal referred the claimant to the Attorney General of Northern Ireland in order that she may decide whether to bring a restriction on proceedings application (as had been the case in England and Wales).

This case demonstrates the importance of having a good paper trail and application of policy when it comes to appointing staff.  It made it much easier for the respondent, in the face of wide-ranging allegations of race and religious discrimination, to defend their position. It was not only the respondent met with these allegations but was something that came about at each step of the process as the allegations were met by the legal representatives as well as members of the judiciary.

You can read the case in full here:
https://www.judiciaryni.uk/files/judiciaryni/2025-05/%5B2025%5D%20NICA%2024Final%20-%20Approved.pdf