Abbey Life Assurance Co Ltd V Tansell [2000]IRLR 387 Court of Appeal
Section 12 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 makes it unlawful "for a principal, in relation to contract work, to discriminate against a disabled person".
As more workers are engaged to work as contractors, agency workers and other sorts of non conventional employment relationships then the protection given by this section of the DDA and the corresponding provisions of the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts becomes vital. In this case the Court of Appeal took a purposive approach to the wording of the DDA and held that the applicant was a contract worker who could present a claim under the DDA against the end user.
In the lead judgment Lord Justice Mummery said "The general purpose of the 1995 Act is to outlaw discrimination on the ground of disability. Employment is one of the fields in which it aims to achieve that goal. In order to achieve that result Parliament decided not to confine liability for discrimination in employment to the employer who discriminates against those employed by him under a traditional contract of service. Under section 12 liability is also imposed on those who, without entering into contracts of service with individual employees, make contracts for individuals employed by others to do work made available for them to do. It would not be consistent with the legislative object to withhold protection from discrimination by a person to whom an employee, who is entitled to protection from his employer, had been supplied to do the same work".
Mr Tansell was a computer specialist, he offered his services through a company in which he was the sole shareholder. He had his name with a number of agencies, one of whom provided his services by contract to Abbey Life. However there was no contract between Abbey Life or Mr Tansell or the company of which he was the sole shareholder.
Mr Tansell was diagnosed as having diabetes in February 1998 and his services with Abbey Life were terminated in March 1998. Mr Tansell brought claims under the DDA against Abbey Life and the agency, that Abbey Life had rejected his services on the ground of his disability.
The Employment Tribunal took the view that to bring a claim within section 12, a direct contractual relationship was needed and found that he was not a contract worker with Abbey Life. The Employment Appeal Tribunal found that he was a contract worker with Abbey Life because there was an unbroken chain of contracts between him and the end user, and the end user is the "principal" under section 12. The Court of Appeal agreed.
Mr Tansell can now pursue his claims against Abbey Life.
This is a common sense decision by the Court of Appeal in which it stresses the importance of giving the wide ranging provisions of the discrimination legislation a generous interpretation. It would clearly be inequitable if ultimate employers could deny liability because of a confusing contractual relationship.