Case 2409700/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Fairbanks v Change Grow Live — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409700/2023
- Decision date
- 29 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Humble REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Fairbanks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing, the tribunal considered whether Mrs Fairbanks had a philosophical belief protected by section 10 Equality Act 2010. She had brought a religion or belief discrimination claim, saying she was treated unfavourably because of her political beliefs and identifying her previous role as a UKIP local councillor. At the hearing she relied on four matters: that the UK should be outside the EU, illegal migration should cease, Halal slaughter of animals should cease, and the UK should leave the ECHR.
Applying the Grainger principles, the tribunal accepted that the claimant genuinely held the views she relied on. It found that she had been sufficiently motivated by her wish to leave the European Union to join UKIP and stand as a councillor, that this appeared linked to her view on illegal immigration, and that she took steps when shopping to avoid buying meat slaughtered using Halal methods.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not shown that those views amounted to a philosophical belief rather than opinions or viewpoints based on the present state of information available. It stated that the claimant had not articulated an underlying belief such as English Nationalism or a belief about sovereign control over legislation, and that it was not for the tribunal to construct a philosophical belief for her. It concluded that the four opinions were strongly held views, not philosophical beliefs, and that membership of a political party was not enough in itself to amount to a philosophical belief.
For completeness, the tribunal also considered the fifth Grainger limb. It found that the claimant's views were worthy of respect in a democratic society, were not incompatible with human dignity, and did not conflict with the fundamental rights of others. That finding did not alter the outcome because the tribunal found that the case concerned a collection of opinions rather than a philosophical belief. The discrimination claim was dismissed and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing because the claimant did not establish that she held a protected philosophical belief under section 10 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not determine the substantive alleged treatment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- section 10 Equality Act 2010
- Grainger plc v Nicholson
- EHRC Statutory Code of Practice on Employment paragraph 2.59
- Mackereth v Department for Work and Pensions
- Forstater v CGD Europe
- Thomas v Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Trust
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.