Victimisation claims covered by judicial immunity

January 4, 2011

Judicial proceedings immunity whereby a witness enjoys absolute immunity from any action brought on the ground that his or her evidence is false, malicious or careless extends to victimisation claims.

The Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) held that a complaint of victimisation could not be pursued based on alleged untruths contained in witness statements served in previous discrimination proceedings.  Case law had already established that judicial proceedings immunity applies to evidence given in discrimination proceedings.  The EAT’s opinion was that there was nothing exceptional about victimisation complaints which would suggest that the principle should be disapplied.


P brought a claim of race discrimination and unfair dismissal which was dismissed on the grounds that he had not complied with the statutory grievance procedure.  P later sought to bring a claim of victimisation, arguing that six witness statements on behalf of his former employer contained untruths and that the reason for this was that P had done a protected act (bringing his first race discrimination claim).


All the witness statements were found to have attracted judicial proceedings immunity and the employment judge struck out the claim on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success.

The President of the EAT considered that permitting claims based on the content of evidence given in prior proceedings would both discourage witnesses from participating in the administration of justice and encourage claimants to seek to resurrect failed claims by way of collateral proceedings.


It is timely that the EAT has confirmed the position as UK employers face an ever increasing number of victimisation claims.


Parmer -v- East Leicester Medical Practice, EAT 01/03/2011

For further information or to discuss the issues raised, please contact Guy Abbiss or Stephen Wright on +44 20 3051 5711


CELIA Alliance
CELIA Alliance members are identified here. Members of the CELIA Alliance are each independent law firms and do not practice law jointly with any other member of the CELIA Alliance. “CELIA Alliance” and “CELIA” are not trading names. For more information about the CELIA Alliance click here.

Content is for general information purposes only. The information provided is not intended to be comprehensive and it does not constitute or contain legal or other advice. If you require assistance in relation to any issue please seek specific advice relevant to your particular circumstances. In particular, no responsibility shall be accepted by the authors or by Abbiss Cadres LLP for any losses occasioned by reliance on any content appearing on or accessible from this newsletter. For further legal information click here.

If you would like to copy or otherwise reproduce this article then you may do so provided that: (1) any such copy or reproduction is for your own personal use or if it is made available to any third party it is done so on a free of charge basis; and (2) the article is reproduced in full together with the contact details, disclaimer and any logos as they appear on each article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *