Employment Appeal Tribunal

Published November 11, 2009

Grainger plc v Nicholson

Before Mr Justice Burton

Judgment November 3, 2009

An asserted philosophical belief that mankind was heading towards catastrophic climate change and the claimant had a moral duty to lead a life in a manner that mitigated that catastrophe for the benefit of future generations and to persuade others to do the same, if genuinely held, was capable of attracting legal protection under equal treatment legislation.

Mr Justice Burton, sitting alone in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, so held when dismissing an appeal from a decision of Employment Judge David Sneath at London (Central) on March 18, 2009, that the claimant, Mr Tim Nicholson, was entitled to pursue a claim of discrimination on the ground of his asserted belief against his employers, Grainger plc.

Regulation 3 of the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003 No 1660) provides that a person discriminated against another if, on the grounds of religion or belief, he treated him less favourably than he would another. Regulation 2 defined “belief” as “any religious or philosophical belief”.

Mr John Bowers, QC, for the employers; Miss Dinah Rose, QC and Mr Ivan Hare for Mr Nicholson.

MR JUSTICE BURTON said that the three main issues were: how far, if at all, the belief said to qualify for protection under the regulations was required to be similar to a religious belief; what, if any, limits should be placed upon the words “philosophical belief”, and whether the authorities in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights were of relevance.

It was necessary to place some limit on the definition of “philosophical belief” for the purposes of the regulations.

By reference to the jurisprudence in the European Court of Human Rights the following limitations applied: the belief had to be genuinely held; it had to be a belief and not an opinion or viewpoint; it had to be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour; it had to attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance and had to be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.

It was necessary for the belief to have a similar cogency to a religious belief but it need not be shared by others. If a person could establish that he held a philosophical belief which was based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, there was no reason to disqualify it from protection by the regulations.

The decision of the employment tribunal in terms that the asserted belief held by the claimant upon which he based his claim of discrimination was capable of being a “belief” for the purposes of the 2003 Regulations, would be upheld.

At the full hearing, there would need to be evidence from which the tribunal could conclude that what was done was done on ground of his belief, and evidence directed to the genuineness of the belief.

Solicitors: Grange Wintringham, Grimsby; Bindmans.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure