Menu
Close
Search
Generic filters

"The barristers are reliable specialists in their field who provide high quality legal advice and representation. They also understand their clients."

Chambers & Partners
25/11/2004

Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College and Others

Uncategorized

Court Appeal and European Court of Justice

In light of the ruling of the European Court of Justice in this case, the matter was remitted to the employment tribunal to determine whether the appellant was a worker within the meaning of Art.141 EC, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman, and whether, if the scheme did have an adverse impact, it was justified.

The appellant employee (W) appealed against a decision dismissing her complaints alleging sex discrimination against the first and second respondents, and a complaint against the third respondent for having denied her access to the teacher's superannuation scheme. W's appeal had been stayed ([2001] EWCA Civ 529, (2001) ICR 1189), pending a reference to the European Court of Justice (C256/01 Allonby). Accordingly, in light of the ECJ's ruling, the court had to deal with consequential matters and make provisions for the determination of outstanding issues. Those issues had been: (a) whether W had been a worker within the meaning of Treaty of Rome, Art.141, as ruled by the ECJ; (b) if W had been a worker, whether the relevant pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman; and (c) if the scheme did have an adverse impact, whether it had been justified.

HELD: In light of the European Court of Justice's ruling it was appropriate to remit the case to the employment tribunal for determination of outstanding matters. The issues that required determination were: (i) whether W was a worker within the meaning of Art.141 as ruled by the ECJ; (ii) if W was a worker, whether the pension scheme had an adverse impact upon her on the grounds that she was a woman; and (iii) if the scheme did have an adverse impact, whether it was justified.
Appeal allowed.
For related proceedings see Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (2001) EWCA Civ 529, (2001) ICR 1189 and Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College (C256/01)
Counsel:
For the appellant: Tess Gill, Robert Moretto
For the first and second respondents: Lord Lester of Herne Hill, Catherine Callaghan
For the third respondent: Christopher Vajda QC, Raymond Hill
Solicitors:
For the appellant: Michael Scott & Co
For the first and second respondents: Klegal
For the third respondent: Treasury Solicitor

LTL 25/11/2004 EXTEMPORE (Unreported elsewhere)

C256/01 Allonby
EMPLOYMENT, DISCRIMINATION, EUROPEAN UNION, EDUCATION, PENSIONS

The ‘capable, efficient, and helpful’ clerks’ room provides ‘a service-orientated approach and goes above and beyond in trying to ensure you have the right barrister for the job ; you have the utmost confidence in the clerking.”

Legal 500

‘an extremely approachable set of chambers which puts a premium on service delivery.’

Chambers & Partners
0
Shortlist Updated

Out of hours

William Meade (Senior Clerk)

07970 649 755

or

Graham Smith (Deputy Senior Clerk)

07795 023 532