This decision of the Court of Appeal confirms that, where a student or applicant has a discrimination claim against a university, those claimants must issue their claims in the County Court and not the Employment Tribunal (ET). This means that they will have to pay an issue fee. The judgment considered the drafting of section 54(4)(c) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) and determined that, if an institution falls within the definition of ‘university’ within EqA 2010, s 91, that displaces its status as a qualification body and claims against it must be made in the County Court. The appellant in this case had not been deprived of a forum to bring his discrimination claim, but he ought to have issued it in the County Court.
Nwabueze v University of Law Ltd and others [2020] EWCA Civ 1526
What are the practical implications of this case?
As the judgment states at para [4]: ‘it is a feature of the EqA 2010 that (with the exception of equal pay) it tends to separate jurisdiction into watertight compartments.’ Allegations of discrimination in an employment context, including relating to qualifications bodies, are covered by EqA 2010, Pt 5 and are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the ET. Allegations of discrimination in education are covered by EqA 2010, Pt 6 and are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the County Court.
This case confirms the position that students or applicants with discrimination claims against universities under EqA 2010 must issue their claims in the County Court and not the ET. If an institution is a university within EqA 2010, s 91, that displaces its status as a qualification body within EqA 2010, Pt 5 such that the ET will have no jurisdiction. In practice, this may act as a deterrent to some claimants, given that an issue fee is payable in the County Court and is not in the ET.
The case also acts as a reminder of the difficulty that applicants will face when seeking an anonymity order further to the decision in Curless v Shell International Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 1710, which emphasised the central importance of open justice.
Case details
Formed in 2017, following significant legislative changes designed to increase competition within the legal services marketplace, Pro Employment Law is a progressive set of barristers’ chambers, consisting only of experienced employment law barristers, offering a full range of specialist advisory, case management, and advocacy services directly to the public through the Public Access scheme. We supply our legal services exclusively in the area of Employment Law to clients located across England & Wales. All of the legal services we supply are covered by professional indemnity insurance with Bar Mutual.
Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.
In McMahon v AXA ICAS [2025] EAT 8, the EAT faced a number of issues on appeal around the payment due from a deduction of wages as well as a disability discrimination claim which was struck out by the employment tribunal. The respondent also cross-appealed a decision on deduction of wages, arguing that there was… >>
Where a claimant has failed to comply with the early conciliation (EC) requirement but the employment tribunal did not reject the claim under either Rule 10 or 12 of the ET Rules 2013 (now Rules 12 or 13 of the ET Rules 2024), the tribunal should not reject the claim at a later stage, eg… >>
In East Lancashire NHS Trust v Akram [2025] EAT 2, the EAT followed the approach set out by the Supreme Court in Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland v Agnew [2024] IRLR 56 on how to calculate a day’s pay for holiday pay purposes. It explained that: • a person should receive… >>