Case note in relation to binding precedent.  

This page is updated by Dr Peter Jepson.

James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] IRLR 288 HL.

Mr and Mrs James, both aged 61, went for a swim in Eastleigh Borough Councils baths. Mrs James was allowed in free because she had reached the ëpensionable ageí of 60, while Mr James had to pay 60p. Mr James, with the support of the Equal Opportunities Commission, brought a claim of direct sex discrimination as per s.1(1)(a) of the SDA 1975. 

 In this case, Lord Bridge said, ëpensionable ageí is a convenient shorthand expression that refers to 60 for women and 65 for men. Thus, this is a case of direct discrimination ñ which is in breach of s. 1(1)(a) of the SDA 1975 ñ and but for the fact that Mr James was a man he could swim free of charge in Easteigh Borough Councilís baths.

 Note: James v Eastleigh B.C establishes the but for test and also confirms that laudable motives are of no significance when it comes to a finding of direct discrimination.

 [This case is a classic example of binding precedent ñ with sex and race discrimination cases settled, and decided, on a daily basis as a result of this important case].