Search

How can we help?

Icon

Not all one-off acts will be a ‘provision, criterion or practice’

The Court of Appeal (“CA”) in Ishola v Transport for London (“TFL”) has given guidance on the meaning of ‘provision, criterion or practice’ (PCP), an essential element for claims of indirect discrimination and failure to make reasonable adjustments.

In this case, the Claimant was signed off work and raised a number of grievances against his colleagues, none of which were upheld.  One of the grievances focused on a particular colleague but had also raised concerns about another colleague which were not investigated. Further, TFL responded to this grievance outside of its usual 28-day timeframe.

The Claimant was subsequently dismissed (fairly) on medical capability grounds and brought various claims including the failure to make reasonable adjustments. The Claimant alleged that the PCP was requiring him to return to work without a proper and fair investigation into his grievance.

Jacob Montague

Senior Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4613

The CA agreed with the EAT that “although a one-off decision or act can be a practice, it is not necessarily one”.

The CA held that it was significant that Parliament had not chosen to use the word ‘act’ or ‘decision’ in this context.  It held that PCP cannot apply to every unfair act and that the wording of PCP connotes some form of continuum in the sense that it is the way in which things generally are, or will be, done. The CA found no evidence that there was a PCP in this case and, in fact, found that the Respondent dealt with grievances in a timely manner. The CA agreed with the EAT that “although a one-off decision or act can be a practice, it is not necessarily one”.

This case will be welcome news to employers.  In Lamb v The Business Academy Bexley, the EAT made clear that a one-off decision can be a PCP.  However, this case highlights that not all one-off acts will qualify and that there must be a state of affairs indicating how similar cases are generally treated or how they will be treated in the future.

About this article

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Jacob Montague

Senior Solicitor

View profile

+44 118 960 4613

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

art
  • 16 May 2024
  • Immigration

What Employers need to know about Biometric Residence Permits

Biometric Residence Permits (BRPs) are biometric immigration documents that are issued to non-EEA nationals and EEA nationals, who have been granted permission to stay in the UK.

art
  • 14 May 2024

Clarkslegal’s London team moves to new Chancery Lane office

The London office of Clarkslegal has relocated to Chancery House, on Chancery Lane. The staff is enthusiastic about the relocation because Chancery Lane has a longstanding association with the legal profession in London.

art
  • 10 May 2024
  • Employment

New duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment – coming October 2024

The Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 is due to come into force in October 2024.

art
  • 09 May 2024
  • Employment

Labour Party Employment Law Proposals – Promises of further consultations and a softer approach

The Prime Minister recently announced a raft of changes, to be implemented in the next parliament, aimed at reducing the number of people who are economically inactive due to illness.

art
  • 09 May 2024
  • Corporate and M&A

Navigating corporate transparency: ECCTA reforms series – part 1

The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA) received Royal Assent in October 2023 and marked a pivotal moment in corporate governance and transparency.

art
  • 07 May 2024
  • Employment

Changes to TUPE rules from 1 July 2024

The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006 (‘TUPE’) aim to safeguard employees’ rights on the transfer of a business or on the change of a service.