Case 2207536/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Jupp, of Counsel For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2207536/2017
- Decision date
- 20 May 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brown
- Venue
- London Central
- Panel members
- Mr G W Bishop, Mr M Reuby
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr J Jupp, of Counsel For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant was a British citizen and student actuary of the Respondent. The tribunal found that the Institute of Actuaries of India (IAI) had a policy of not admitting UK nationals, and that the Respondent had an MRA with the IAI under which IAI examination passes were treated as direct equivalents for the Respondent's exemptions. On that basis, Indian nationals who were members of both bodies could have four opportunities a year to pass relevant examinations, while the Claimant, as a UK national excluded from the IAI route, had only the Respondent's two annual sittings available to him.
On claim 1, the tribunal held that the Respondent directly discriminated against the Claimant because of race, treating him less favourably than an Indian national by giving access to additional qualifying opportunities through the IAI exemption route. On claim 2, it accepted the PCPs of two exam sittings per year, the Curriculum 2019 transition deadline of 31 December 2018, and the IAI exemption policy. It found those PCPs, taken together, put UK nationals and the Claimant at a particular disadvantage, and held that the Respondent had not shown the PCPs to be a proportionate means of achieving its legitimate aims.
Claim 3, concerning the requirement that a member be a Fellow of the Respondent in order to be regarded as a fully qualified actuary, failed. The tribunal held that the pleaded PCP was circular and was not in fact applied to the Claimant in the way alleged. It also accepted the Respondent's case that there was insufficient evidence about the Swiss system to support the suggested disadvantage on the facts before it.
On claim 4, the tribunal found that there had been an understanding between the Respondent's predecessor and the IAI that the IAI would not admit UK nationals, and that this amounted to the Respondent instructing, causing, inducing or aiding discriminatory conduct by the IAI. The tribunal held that this fell within the arrangements made by a qualifications body for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification, and that the act was continuing. A remedy hearing was listed for 17 June 2019, so this judgment did not determine any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | British nationality was the protected characteristic relied on. The tribunal held that the Respondent gave Indian nationals additional examination opportunities through automatic exemptions for IAI passes, which the Claimant could not access because the IAI would not admit UK nationals. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal accepted PCPs consisting of two exam sittings per year, the 31 December 2018 transition requirement under Curriculum 2019, and the exemption policy for IAI exams. It found group and individual disadvantage to UK nationals and held the justification case failed. | Upheld | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | This claim concerned the requirement that a member be appointed a Fellow to be regarded as a fully qualified actuary of the Respondent. The tribunal held the pleaded PCP was circular and not in fact applied to the Claimant, and in any event the evidence about the Swiss route was insufficient. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal found an understanding between the Respondent's predecessor and the IAI that the IAI would not admit UK nationals, and held this amounted to instructing, causing, inducing or aiding the IAI's discriminatory conduct. It found the act was continuing. | Upheld | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- Igen v Wong burden of proof
- s.136 EqA 2010
- s.13 EqA 2010
- James v Eastleigh BC test
- Nagarajan reason test
- Taiwo exact correspondence
- s.19 EqA 2010
- MoD v DeBique interaction of PCPs
- Grundy pool for comparison
- Hardys & Hansons v Lax proportionality
- Homer proportionality
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.