Continue reading "Justification Defence: Revisiting the ‘cost plus’ rule"
This post is only available to members.
Justification Defence: Revisiting the ‘cost plus’ rule
Katharine McPherson reviews the decision in Woodcock v Cumbria PCT and considers what role cost may play in justifying treatment that would otherwise amount to discrimination ‘In accordance with previous case law, the court agreed that an employer cannot justify discrimination simply because not discriminating would involve increased costs.’ For some time now, case law …
Cases Referenced
Cases in bold have further reading - click to view related articles.
- Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College [2004] EUECJ C-256/01; [2001] EWCA Civ 529
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz [1986] IRLR 317 (ECJ)
- Cordell v Foreign and Commonwealth Office [2011] UKEAT/0016/11
- Cross v British Airways [2005] UKEAT/0572/04
- De Weerd (nee Roks) & Ors v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsvereniging voor de Gezondheid
- Geestelijke en Maatschappelijke Belangen & ors [1994] ECR 1-571
- Hill & Stapleton v The Revenue Commissioners & anor [1998] IRLR 466
- Kutz-Bauer v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg [2003] IRLR 368
- London Borough of Tower Hamlets v Wooster [2009] UKEAT/0441/08
- Loxley v BAE Systems Land systems (Munitions & Ordnance) Ltd [2008] IRLR 853
- Pulham & ors v London Borough of Barking & Dagenham [2009] UKEAT/0516/08
- Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council v Bainbridge [2006] UKEAT/0135/06; [2008] EWCA Civ 885
- Woodcock v Cumbria Primary Care Trust [2012] EWCA Civ 330