Home » James v Eastleigh Borough Council

James v Eastleigh Borough Council

Disclaimer – please read
This page does not apply outside Great Britain.
Last updated 27th December 2000.

House of Lords, 1990. Full judgment: bailii.org.

The Council provided free swimming facilities for old age pensioners. The qualifying age was accordingly 65 for men and 60 for women.

The House of Lords held that this was sex discrimination, regardless of motive. The test was objective. ‘But for’ his gender, a man of 61 like Mr James would have received the same free swimming facilities as his wife.

My comment

Whilst reaffirming that motive is irrelevant, Lord Phillips in the JFS admissions case (link to bailii.org) did not consider the ‘but for’ test helpful. He said, “It is better simply to ask what were the facts that the discriminator considered to be determinative when making the relevant decision.” There was also discussion on the ‘but for’ test in Amnesty International v Ahmed, 2009. An example of facts where the test is inappropriate are Martin v Lancehawk Ltd (link to bailii.org).

20th anniversary of stammeringlaw, 1999-2019