Hinds v British Boxing Board of Control

Following a one-week trial in July 2024, the Employment Tribunal has handed down a reserved judgment dismissing the Claimant’s claims that the BBBofC had discriminated against or victimised the Claimant and finding that the Board had reached the decisions challenged (to not appoint the Claimant to referee boxing matches under the Board’s auspices pending the resolution of defamation proceedings brought by the Claimant against the BBBofC in the High Court) for justifiable reasons. Of broader interest, the judgment identifies the potential liability of sports governing bodies towards licence holders under provisions of the Equality Act 2010 concerning ‘qualifications bodies’ under sections 53-54 in Part V (Work) of the Act. Section 53 provides that a qualifications body must not discriminate against a person in the arrangements it makes for deciding upon whom to confer a relevant qualification, as to the terms on which it is prepared to confer a relevant qualification or by not conferring a relevant qualification. Section 54 defines a qualification as an “authorisation, qualification, recognition, registration, enrolment, approval or certification which is needed for, or facilitates engagement in, a particular trade or profession.” Claims under these provisions are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunals.

Tom Mountford represented the successful Respondent, the British Boxing Board of Control.

The judgment can be accessed here.