Case 1601972/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jeffery Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1601972/2021
- Decision date
- 9 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Members
- Venue
- Reading
- Panel members
- Ms S Hughes, Mr F Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jeffery Hinds
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Jeffery Hinds, a boxing referee licensed by the British Boxing Board of Control, brought direct race discrimination and victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010 in relation to the respondent's decision of 17 July 2020, later confirmed by the full Board on 11 November 2020, that he would not be appointed to future tournaments while litigation against the Board was ongoing.
The tribunal accepted that the claimant's statement at the 4 September 2019 Southern Area Council meeting amounted to a protected act for section 27 purposes, even though the statement did not expressly refer to race discrimination or the Equality Act. It found, however, that the claimant continued to be appointed to referee bouts after that meeting and that the later decision was taken after legal advice, from a choice of options, in response to the defamation proceedings he had brought, rather than because of the protected act.
The direct race discrimination claim also failed. Applying Shamoon, the tribunal concluded that the reason for the treatment was the claimant's defamation proceedings, not his race; it noted the Board's concerns that the ongoing litigation might affect his judgment and performance and its view that it was entitled to take account of those concerns and the inherent dangers of boxing.
The judgment dismisses both complaints and does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found that the claimant's race was not the reason for the 17 July 2020 decision, or its confirmation on 11 November 2020, not to appoint him to future tournaments while litigation was ongoing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The tribunal accepted that the claimant's statement at the 4 September 2019 Southern Area Council meeting was a protected act, but held that the later decision was not made to any material extent because of that protected act. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.13 EqA 2010
- s.27 EqA 2010
- s.53(2)(c) EqA 2010
- s.53(5)(c) EqA 2010
- Nagarajan v London Regional Transport [2001] 1 AC 510
- Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] ICR 337
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.