This Practice Note outlines the remedies available when bringing a prohibited conduct claim (discrimination claim) under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and signposts other materials where further information is available. It also covers the effects of findings from previous proceedings under the discrimination legislation that preceded EqA 2010 and the additional requirement for a ‘service complaint’ that applies to claims by members of the armed forces. Note that there is a separate Practice Note that considers remedies in equality of terms (equal pay) claims: see Practice Note: Equal pay claims—jurisdiction, remedies and interest. The available remedies If an employment tribunal finds that there has been a contravention of: • Part 5 (work—see Practice Note: Employment events which give rise to discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims) • section 108 (prohibited conduct concerning relationships that have ended—see Practice Note: Employment events which give rise to discrimination, harassment and victimisation claims—After employment) • section 111 (instructing, causing or inducing contraventions—see Practice Note: Liability of employers and employees under the Equality Act 2010—Instructing, causing or inducing contraventions) • section 112

This Practice Note examines the time limits that apply when bringing prohibited conduct claims under the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010). It considers the provisions of EqA 2010 in relation to: qualification periods, time limits, when time starts running, the difference between one-off acts and conduct extending over a period, the overlap between time limits and constructive dismissal, and when the time limit will be extended, including in disability cases. Qualification periods No qualifying period of employment is needed to make a claim in relation to prohibited conduct under EqA 2010. This is in contrast to the right to claim ordinary unfair dismissal, see Practice Note: Qualifying period for unfair dismissal for full details. Where a dismissal is claimed to be on any discriminatory grounds: • the employee can bring a discrimination claim about the dismissal no matter how long they have been employed, but may not always qualify to claim unfair dismissal as well, unless the reason for dismissal is one which requires no qualifying period (see Practice Note: Qualifying period for unfair dismissal). The significance

Part A Statement of facts 1 I have been working for the college as a lecturer since [insert date]. 2 On [insert date] I saw an advertisement for a post of senior lecturer. I was interested in applying for the post and went and spoke to my head of department, Professor A, to find out more about the post. 3 She seemed very surprised that I was considering applying and said: ‘But Mary, I thought you’d be looking forward to putting your feet up and moving to the seaside soon’. 4 I assured her that I was not considering retiring any time soon and said that I was a bit offended by her remarks. 5 She told me it was up to me whether I applied for the post and terminated the discussion. 6 Subsequently, at a staff meeting on [insert date], I overheard Professor A use the words ‘grumpy old bat’ to Professor B whilst waving a hand in my direction. 7 On [insert date] I submitted an application for the post of senior lecturer. 8 On [insert date], I submitted a formal grievance in which I complained about the

Part A Statement of facts 1 I suffer from diabetes and chronic depression. I am severely dyslexic. I have been employed by the company since [insert date] as a sales executive. 2 In [insert date], I suffered from a deterioration in my diabetic condition and, after a period of absence, my employer referred me to an occupational health consultant. 3 On [insert date], I had a meeting with my manager Mr A and a human resources adviser, Mr B. They told me that my levels of absence were unacceptable. They showed me the report from Dr C, the consultant. Dr C said that it was unsafe for me to continue to undertake driving duties. Mr A said that I could not continue in my sales executive role. 4 I pointed out that the report stated that my condition was likely to improve again as I responded to an adjustment in the management of my diabetes and that I would then be able to resume driving duties. 5 Mr A said the company could not wait and that I would need to consider an alternative position.

Part A Statement of facts 1 I commenced my employment with the company on [insert date] as an administrative assistant. 2 On [insert date] I saw an advertisement on the company’s intranet for an office manager post. One of the requirements was GCSEs in English and maths. 3 I am from the United States and have a high school diploma which I maintain is at least equivalent to GCSE English and maths. 4 I approached Ms A in the human resources department and said I was interested in applying for the post. I explained what qualifications I had. 5 She told me I was not eligible to apply and that as she understood it, it was possible to get a high school diploma off the back of a cereal packet. 6 I was offended by her remarks and told her so. 7 She responded ‘So what are you going to do, invade my country?’ 8 I was astonished and upset and terminated the conversation. 9 On [insert date] I applied for the post of office manager in any event. 10 On [insert date] I submitted a grievance under the company’s grievance procedure about

Part A Statement of facts 1 I commenced employment with the company on [insert date]. I was employed as personal assistant to Mr A. 2 On a number of occasions, starting in about [insert date], Mr A made remarks to me of a sexual nature. In particular he said to me ‘Did you get any over the weekend?’ and ‘You look glum, that boyfriend of yours not keeping you happy?’ and made repeated comments about my clothes and personal appearance. 3 I made it clear to him that I did not welcome these remarks. In particular, on about [insert date], I said that I was not happy discussing my sex life or my appearance and asked him to treat me in a more professional manner. 4 On about [insert date], I had my annual appraisal. Mr A called me into a meeting and told me that I had scored 4 (unsatisfactory) in a number of categories. This was despite the fact that I had recently passed my probation period and had received no complaints about the quality of my work. 5 I brought a grievance

Rule 4.1 sets out the prohibitions on dealings in the securities of the offeree by anyone other than the offeror. The rule should be considered in conjunction with the criminal insider dealing regime under the Criminal Justice Act 1993 (CJA 1993) and the market abuse regime under the UK Market Abuse Regulation.

A ‘prohibited list’ is a list: • which contains details of persons who: ? are or have been members of trade unions, or ? are taking part or have taken part in trade union activities, and • is compiled with a view to being used by employers or employment agencies for the purpose of discrimination in relation to recruitment or the treatment of workers

A name prohibited from use by directors under Insolvency Act 1986, s 216.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Mr Justice Fordham dismissed an appeal against conviction under section 216(3)(c) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), holding that the exception in rule 22.7 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024 applies only where the successor business is carried on through a pre-existing company, not by a sole trader or other unincorporated business. Applying the provision’s natural meaning, the court emphasised its express reference to a ‘company’ and the statutory corporate dormancy test. Practitioners should therefore treat the prohibited name exceptions as narrowly drawn: prior use of the name by an established sole trader business affords no protection. Former directors must seek court permission, with IR 2016, SI 2016/1024, r 22.6 offering interim protection where an application is made within seven business days of liquidation. Produced in partnership with Gavin Chesney, Luke Duggan, counsels and solicitor advocates, and Alexander McGinley, associate, of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP.

This Practice Note considers sections 216 and 217 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) that concern the prohibition on the use of certain names of companies that entered into insolvent liquidation. For key cases and associated relevant content, see Practice Note: Prohibited names—key cases. The purpose of section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 IA 1986, section 216 is aimed at preventing phoenix companies from causing a disadvantage to creditors by creating more transparency surrounding the re-use of company names. A phoenix company may typically be where a director or directors trade a successive company with a similar name, taking the valuable parts of the company in liquidation, leaving behind its creditors. The re-use of the name is seen by many as a way of deceiving creditors into thinking they are dealing with the same company. This practice (known as phoenixing) is therefore met with distrust by creditors. The Insolvency Service has produced guidance on the law relating to the practice of carrying on a business through a

This Practice Note sets out certain key cases and associated relevant content in relation to the prohibited name rule under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986), the consequences of breaching IA 1986, s 216 and the exceptions to that general rule. The cases are divided by topic area and include: • who is bound by IA 1986, s 216? • what names are restricted? • what is restricted? • penalties for breach of IA 1986, s 216: ◦ civil sanctions ◦ criminal sanctions • avoiding liability under IA 1986, s 216: ◦ obtaining leave of the court ◦ established name For further reading on this topic, see Practice Notes: • Prohibited names under section 216 of the Insolvency Act 1986 • How a director of an insolvent company can use a prohibited name and avoid personal liability Who is bound by IA 1986, s 216? Names of parties Judgment date Case summary Relevant content Re Newtons Coaches [2016] EWHC 3068 (Ch), [2016] All ER