Meade-Hill and National Union of Civil and Public Servants v British Council [1995] IRLR 478 CA

Reports relating to this case:

  • Mobility clause challenged

    1 September 1995

    In Meade-Hill and another v British Council (7 April 1995), the Court of Appeal holds that a contractual mobility clause was capable of challenge on grounds that it was indirectly sex discriminatory, notwithstanding that the term had not yet been invoked, and that it was a term with an adverse impact upon women because a higher proportion of women than men are secondary earners who would find it impossible to move their workplace to a destination which involved a change of home. The Court of Appeal does not deal, however, with whether the mobility clause was justifiable.

  • Sex discrimination: Mobility clause indirectly discriminatory against women

    1 May 1995

    In Meade-Hill and another v The British Council, the Court of Appeal holds that the inclusion of a mobility clause in a married woman's contract of employment constituted indirect discrimination against her as a woman under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.