Latest in Employment Law>Case Law>Page v NHS Trust Development Authority; Page v Lord Chancellor [2021]
Page v NHS Trust Development Authority; Page v Lord Chancellor [2021]
Published on: 01/03/2021
Issues Covered: Discrimination
Article Authors The main content of this article was provided by the following authors.
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister
Jason Elliott BL Lecturer in Law and Barrister

Jason Elliott was called to the Bar of Northern Ireland in 2013 and is the Associate Head of School of Law at Ulster University.  As a practising barrister, he has developed a largely civil practice representing individuals, companies and public bodies in litigation. This covers a wide range of areas including personal injuries, wills and employment law. In terms of employment law, he has represented both applicants and respondents in the Industrial Tribunal.   At Ulster University, Jason lectures extensively on the civil areas of practise such as Equity and Trusts and delivers employment law lectures for both undergraduate and postgraduate students.

Background

The claimant in these conjoined cases was a non-executive director of the NHS Trust as well as being a Lay Magistrate.  The issue arose when the claimant gave some media interviews where he expressed views, based upon his Christian belief, against same-sex adoption and homosexuality.  The Trust warned the claimant about his public expression of views, but he continued with an interview on BBC Breakfast News where he suggested, inter alia, that he had been disciplined because of his religious views.  As a result of this, he was removed from the non-executive directorship with the Trust as well as his position as Lay Magistrate. The reasons given by the NHS Trust premised on the fact that his actions may impact on the ability to engage with gay service-users and that the claimant had indicated no insight as to why his comments could be perceived as problematic.  Similarly, with the position of Magistrate, the reason was that he would be sitting on some sensitive issues and it could also involve family court decisions involving adoptions.

The claimant brought claims against both the Trust and Lord Chancellor for direct and indirect discrimination on the basis of religious belief as well as victimisation and harassment claims.   The ET and EAT dismissed the claims stating that there was inappropriate conduct in publicly displaying a bias, especially when it came to being a Magistrate.   This was contrary to the judicial oath and could bring the judiciary into disrepute.  For that reason, the decisions made by the Trust and Lord Chancellor were not based on the claimant’s beliefs or because of any protected act but instead on the basis of the public expressions made and how they could be perceived.

On appeal to the Court of Appeal, the claimant argued that the Tribunal(s) had erred in relying upon Martin v Devonshires Solicitors.  The EAT held that the dismissal in response to a complaint of discrimination may not be unlawful if the reason for dismissal was not the complaint per se but some feature of it.   The Court of Appeal outlined that the Lord Chancellor had said nothing about the issues of discrimination but rather it was the misconduct about how what the claimant had said could affect the performance of his duties.  It was for the claimant to show that that was not the real reason.  This was not done.

The claimant raised a second issue under Article 10 of the ECHR, that being the freedom of expression.  The Court of Appeal did doubt the Tribunal’s initial decision which found that Article 10 was not engaged at all.  Notwithstanding, it was held that there was no breach of Article 10 as any interference from the Lord Chancellor and Trust was justified.   This was on the basis that the public statements had compromised the Claimant’s impartiality and could adversely affect the services offered.  Therefore, the interference was justified, and the action taken was proportionate.

Similar arguments were raised on the Freedom of Religion under Article 9 yet this was rejected as the right was not engaged - the European Court of Human Rights has stated that there must be a closeness and directness to the religious belief yet the claimant argued his points on ‘traditional family belief’ rather than Christian beliefs.  Accordingly, the claimant’s case was dismissed.

Practical Lessons

This case demonstrates the competing battle, in some situations, between religious belief and the freedom of expression and demonstrates that the effect of the expressions must be taken into account. Therefore, as the claimant would have been adjudicating upon adoption cases it would then be wrong to make public statements about who should and who should not be able to adopt.  Similarly, public statements and the ramifications on particular organisations that the claimant is connected to also have to be taken into account.  As it could harm the efforts of the Trust, it was held that the actions taken by both respondents was proportionate and there was no discrimination or breach of human rights.

EWCA 254: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/254.html

EWCA 255: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2021/255.html

Continue reading

We help hundreds of people like you understand how the latest changes in employment law impact your business.

Already a subscriber?

Please log in to view the full article.

What you'll get:

  • Help understand the ramifications of each important case from NI, GB and Europe
  • Ensure your organisation's policies and procedures are fully compliant with NI law
  • 24/7 access to all the content in the Legal Island Vault for research case law and HR issues
  • Receive free preliminary advice on workplace issues from the employment team

Already a subscriber? Log in now or start a free trial

Disclaimer The information in this article is provided as part of Legal Island's Employment Law Hub. We regret we are not able to respond to requests for specific legal or HR queries and recommend that professional advice is obtained before relying on information supplied anywhere within this article. This article is correct at 01/03/2021