Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd
A purposive interpretation meant that an employer was liable for racial harassment by employees acting in the course of employment.
Facts
Raymondo Jones, a 16 year old of mixed ethnic origin, worked at a shoe factory. Other employees subjected him to serious racial harassment, including branding his arm with a hot screwdriver, throwing metal bolts at his head and calling him racist names. He left after a month and brought a claim against his employer under the Race Relations Act 1976, which made employers liable for acts done by employees in the course of their employment. The employer argued that deliberate acts of harassment could not be in the course of employment, applying the narrow test used in the law of tort.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal held that the employer was liable. Waite LJ said that the words in the course of employment in the 1976 Act should be given their ordinary, everyday meaning, rather than the narrow technical meaning developed in tort for vicarious liability. A purposive interpretation was required, because the purpose of the Act was to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, and it would be absurd if the more serious the harassment, the less likely the employer would be to be liable.
Related cases on statutory interpretation
- Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
- Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591
- Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
- Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61
- Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a
- Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
- London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] AC 278
- Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corp [1952] AC 189
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
