Introduction

The case of Steer v. Stormsure Ltd ([2021] EWCA Civ 887) represents a significant development in the intersection of employment law and human rights within the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The appellant, Ms. Steer, alleged that her dismissal was grounded in sex discrimination and victimisation, raising pivotal questions about the availability of interim relief in such discrimination cases under English law. With the support of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Ms. Steer challenged the existing statutory framework, arguing that the lack of interim relief options in discrimination and victimisation claims infringed upon her rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), specifically Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 6, 8, and 1 of Protocol 1 (A1P1).

This comprehensive commentary delves into the intricacies of the judgment, examining the background, the court’s reasoning, the legal precedents cited, and the broader implications for future employment and human rights cases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal Civil Division reviewed the Employment Appeal Tribunal's (EAT) decision to dismiss Ms. Steer's appeal while granting permission to appeal on the human rights grounds. The core issue revolved around whether the absence of interim relief in discrimination or victimisation claims under the Equality Act 2010 constitutes a breach of Article 14 of the ECHR.

Lord Justice Bean articulated that English employment law does not typically enforce employment contracts against the will of either party, and notably, employment tribunals (ETs) have limited powers regarding interim relief. Historically, interim relief has been restricted to specific categories, such as trade union activities, health and safety representation, and whistleblowing, but not extended to general discrimination or victimisation claims.

Ms. Steer's argument posited that the lack of interim relief options in her discrimination claim amounted to indirect sex discrimination, thereby violating her ECHR rights. Cavanagh J, presiding over the EAT, acknowledged the potential for significant legal change if Ms. Steer’s claims were upheld but ultimately found that the difference in interim relief provisions did not amount to unlawful discrimination.

The judgment emphasized that the procedural and remedial frameworks for discrimination/victimisation claims, when viewed holistically, are not less favourable compared to other claim types, such as whistleblowing. Consequently, the court held that the unavailability of interim relief in discrimination cases does not infringe upon Article 14 when read alongside Article 6 or 8 of the ECHR.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and statutory provisions that have shaped the understanding of employment law remedies. Notable among these are:

• Hill v C A Parsons & Co [1972] Ch 305: Established the rarity of granting injunctions to prevent or suspend employee dismissal.
• Chhabra v West London Mental Health NHS Trust [2013] UKSC 80: Reinforced that interim remedies are scarcely granted in employment dismissal cases unless procedural aspects are breached.
• R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice [2018] UKSC 59: Outlined the four-stage approach for assessing Article 14 ECHR claims.
• Kuzel v Roche Products Ltd [2008] ICR 799: Discussed the distinct statutory structures governing unfair dismissal and discrimination claims.
• Totel v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2018] UKSC 44: Introduced the "package principle," emphasizing that comparisons of remedies should consider the entire set of procedural and substantive features.

These precedents underscore the judiciary's cautious approach in extending interim relief, emphasizing statutory interpretation and the principles of equivalence and justification within human rights law.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on determining whether the statutory framework's differential treatment concerning interim relief between discrimination/victimisation claims and whistleblowing claims resulted in a violation of Article 14 ECHR.

• Ambit of Article 14: The court delineated the scope of Article 14, determining that the lack of interim relief did not fall within its ambit when coupled with Article 6 or 8.
• Status Consideration: The debate over whether claimants in discrimination cases possess a "core status" or "other status" was pivotal. The court concluded that being a claimant in such cases constitutes an "other status," which does not afford the heightened level of protection that a core status would.
• Equivalence and Analogous Situations: The court evaluated whether the situations of discrimination claimants were analogous to those with whistleblowing claims. It determined that, when considering the complete package of available remedies and procedural safeguards, discrimination claimants were not treated less favourably.
• Justification of Differential Treatment: Even if there were differences, the court found that the legislature's decision to restrict interim relief to specific categories (e.g., whistleblowers) was justified, aiming to balance various interests such as protecting public interest actions and maintaining an efficient tribunal system.

The court meticulously applied the principles of proportionality and legislative intent, ultimately affirming that the existing statutory provisions did not infringe upon the appellant's human rights under the ECHR.

Impact

The judgment in Steer v. Stormsure Ltd has profound implications for both employment law and human rights jurisprudence:

• Employment Tribunals: Affirmed the limited scope of interim relief, thereby maintaining the status quo in how ETs handle different types of employment claims.
• Legislative Framework: Reinforced the judiciary's deference to parliamentary decisions regarding the structure and availability of legal remedies within employment law.
• Human Rights Law: Clarified the application of Article 14 in the context of employment disputes, particularly emphasizing the necessity of justifying any differential treatment within legally defined parameters.
• Future Litigation: Sets a precedent that claimants cannot unilaterally extend their rights to interim relief beyond what is expressly provided in legislation, even when arguing potential human rights violations.

Overall, the decision underscores the judiciary's role in balancing individual rights with legislative intent and systemic efficiency, ensuring that human rights considerations are integrated within the bounds of established legal frameworks.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Interim Relief

Interim Relief refers to temporary legal remedies granted by a court or tribunal before the final determination of a case. In the context of employment law, it typically involves measures like reinstatement or re-engagement of an employee pending the outcome of their claim.

Article 14 of the ECHR

Article 14 prohibits discrimination by public authorities and ensures that individuals are treated equally under the law. It requires that any differential treatment be justified under legitimate aims and that the means of achieving these aims are appropriate and proportionate.

Article 6 and Article 8 of the ECHR

Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair trial, ensuring procedural fairness and integrity in legal proceedings. Article 8 protects the right to respect for private and family life, which can be implicated in cases where employment actions adversely affect an individual’s private existence or reputation.

The Doctrine of Equivalence

The Doctrine of Equivalence in EU law requires that national legal remedies be no less favorable than those available under EU law. This ensures that individuals have access to effective remedy mechanisms irrespective of national differences, fostering uniform protection standards across member states.

Article 14 Read with Article 6 or 8

When Article 14 is read in conjunction with Article 6 or Article 8, it scrutinizes whether discrimination aggravates the rights guaranteed under Article 6 (right to fair trial) or Article 8 (right to private and family life). Essentially, it ensures that discrimination does not undermine the foundational rights protected by these articles.

Conclusion

The judgment in Steer v. Stormsure Ltd elucidates the delicate balance courts must maintain between upholding human rights and respecting legislative frameworks. By determining that the absence of interim relief in discrimination and victimisation claims does not breach Article 14 of the ECHR, the court reinforced the principle that legal remedies must align with the specific statutory provisions set forth by Parliament.

This decision underscores the judiciary's role in interpreting the law within the boundaries of established statutes, particularly when addressing complex intersections between employment law and human rights. It also highlights the necessity for clear legislative intent when expanding or modifying the scope of legal remedies, ensuring that any such changes are meticulously justified and proportionate.

For practitioners and stakeholders in employment law, this judgment serves as a reaffirmation of the existing limitations regarding interim relief in discrimination cases, while also outlining the rigorous standards required for challenging such statutory provisions under human rights laws. As the appeal proceeds to the Court of Appeal, the broader legal community will keenly observe the outcomes, which may further define the contours of employment remedies and human rights protections in the realm of British law.