Anyanwu v South Bank Student Union (House of Lords)

In brief

The House of Lords held that a claim alleging aiding unlawful discrimination under the Race Relations Act 1976 (now EA 2010 ss.111-112) should not be struck out at a preliminary stage. The court emphasised that discrimination cases normally involve the drawing of inferences from primary facts and are unsuitable for summary disposal. Lord Hope: 'Discrimination cases are, generally speaking, not appropriate for striking out.' The case also confirmed the broad scope of what constitutes 'aiding' discrimination and affirmed that strike-out should be exercised only in the clearest cases.

Key provisions

• strike-out-inappropriate — Strike-out generally inappropriate in discrimination cases: Lord Hope: 'Discrimination cases are, generally speaking, not appropriate for striking out.' Discrimination cases normally involve inferences from primary facts and require full evidence — strike-out should be exercised only in the clearest cases. Procedural protection for claimants.
• aiding-broad-scope — Broad scope of 'aiding' discrimination (EA 2010 ss.111-112): The case confirmed the broad scope of what constitutes 'aiding' unlawful discrimination. Now codified in EA 2010 ss.111 (instructing) and 112 (causing/inducing). Managers, colleagues, and intermediaries who facilitate discriminatory decisions can be personally liable.

When relevant

Cite when: (a) respondent applies for strike-out of a discrimination claim at a preliminary stage; (b) personal liability of managers, colleagues, or intermediaries for aiding/instructing/causing discrimination is in issue (EA 2010 ss.111-112); (c) the appropriate procedural posture for discrimination claims is being argued; (d) cases where the trans-adverse decision was facilitated by multiple actors and individual liability needs analysis.