Discrimination—Employment Tribunal or County Court?

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

  • Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
  • Judge: Bean, Asplin and Lewis LJJ
  • Date of judgment: 13 November 2020

Contact Us

Please contact us for a free, initial telephone consultation with a barrister.

020 7459 4619

    Contact Us





    Latest News

    FCA issues policy statement with guidance on non-financial misconduct

    The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has published Policy statement PS25/23: Tackling non‑financial misconduct in financial services, following amendment of the Code of Conduct (COCON) and the Fit and Proper test for Employees and Senior Personnel (FIT) sourcebooks. The policy statement contains final guidance on serious non-financial misconduct (NFM) in the financial services sector, and aims… >>

    19 December 2025

    Employment Tribunals launch 18 explainer videos for unrepresented parties

    The President of Employment Tribunals (England & Wales), Judge Barry Clarke, has announced the launch of 18 explainer videos on YouTube aimed at improving access to justice by clarifying tribunal procedures and complex employment law for unrepresented parties. The initiative also seeks to help litigants present focused claims and responses, reducing case management time. This… >>

    12 December 2025

    Non-binary NHS worker loses claim over misgendering

    In Lockwood v Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust (ET case numbers: 2401211/2024, 2407178/2024), an employment tribunal has rejected a non-binary National Health Service (NHS) worker’s complaint over repeated misgendering at work, ruling that protections under equality laws did not apply. Judge Nicky Benson ruled that Haech Lockwood, a Cheshire and Wirral NHS Foundation Trust… >>

    5 December 2025