Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our professional writers as a learning aid to help you with your studies.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.
If you would like to view samples of the work produced by our academic writers please click here.
Hounga v Allen and Another  UKSC 47
Judgment handed down: 30 July 2014
Facts of the Case
Miss Hounga is of Nigerian nationality, now residing in England. In January 2007, when Miss Hounga was approximately 14 years of age, she came from Nigeria
to the UK under a false identity in order to be granted a visitor’s visa for six months. Mrs Allen, who is of joint Nigerian and British nationality,
resides in England and for the 18 months following Miss Hounga’s arrival into the UK, allowed her to stay within her home with her husband and
children. Although having no right to work within the UK due to only holding a visitor’s visa, and after July 2007 having no right to remain within
the UK, Mrs Allen employed her, unpaid, to look after her children in the home. Both parties knew that the arrangements for Miss Hounga to be allowed
access to the UK were illegal. At her home, Mrs Allen inflicted serious physical abuse on Miss Hounga and told her that if she left the home, she would be
imprisoned because her presence in the UK was illegal.
In July 2008, Mrs Allen forcibly evicted Miss Hounga from her home and thereby dismissed her from her employment.
Miss Hounga issued a variety of claims and complaints against Mrs Allen in the Employment Tribunal. One claim which the tribunal upheld was her complaint
of unlawful discrimination due to Mrs Allens dismissal being based on Miss Hounga’s Nigerian nationality and resulting unlawful immigration status,
but only the part of the complaint which related to her dismissal. The Employment Tribunal held that Mrs Allen breached s. 4(2)(c) of the Race Relations
Act 1976 as it then was. The tribunal ordered Mrs Allen to pay Miss Hounga compensation for the resultant injury to her feelings to the sum of £6,187.
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed Mrs Allen’s cross-appeal against the order. The Court of Appeal however, upheld a further cross-appeal
brought by Mrs Allen against the Employment Appeal Tribunals decision. The Court of Appeal upheld Mrs Allen’s defence of illegality and overturned
the decision of the Employment Tribunal. The court found that the illegality of the contract of employment formed a material part of Miss Hounga’s
complaint and that to uphold it would be to condone the illegality. The Court of Appeal stated that it was not open to Miss Hounga to complain about
dismissal, from an employment which she had agreed to take and which, to her knowledge, was illegal.
The Issue on Appeal
In what circumstances should the defence of illegality defeat a complaint by an employee that an employer has discriminated against him by dismissing him
contrary to section 4(2)(c) of the Race
Relations Act 1976? The 1976 Act was repealed by section 211(2) of, and Schedule 27 to, the Equality Act 2010 and with effect from 1 October 2010 the
provision in section 4(2)(c) has been subsumed in section 39(2)(c) of the 2010 Act.
Supreme Court’s decision
The Supreme Court unanimously allowed Miss Hounga’s appeal and restored the order for compensation. All 5 judges of the court (Lady Hale, Lord Kerr,
Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath and Lord Hughes) agree that there was an insufficiently close connection between the illegality of Miss Hounga’s entry
into the contract of employment and the acts by which Mrs Allen unlawfully dismissed her. That would have been the basis on which Lord Hughes and Lord
Carnwath would have rejected Mrs Allen’s defence of illegality.
Lady Hale, Lord Kerr and Lord Wilson however, rejected it on a different basis. They held that the defence of illegality rests upon an aspect of public
policy, namely that the integrity of the legal system should be preserved, however in this case, another important aspect of currently public policy is in
play namely against the international trafficking of vulnerable people and in favour of protecting them. These judges held that it would be an affront to
current public policy against trafficking to allow Mrs Allen to evade liability to Miss Hounga by reference to the illegality of the contract of employment
entered into between them.
Full judgment found here:
Press summary found here:
Related ServicesView all
DMCA / Removal Request
If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the UK Essays website then please.