What is the ratio in James v Eastleigh?

Direct discrimination is established by the 'but for' causation test - discriminatory intention or motive is not required, only that the less favourable treatment was because of the protected characteristic.

Why is James v Eastleigh important for discrimination law?

It established the objective causation test for direct discrimination, making it easier to prove discrimination cases by removing the need to show discriminatory intent or motive.

What is the ratio in James v Eastleigh?

Direct discrimination is established by the 'but for' causation test - discriminatory intention or motive is not required, only that the less favourable treatment was because of the protected characteristic.

Why is James v Eastleigh important for discrimination law?

It established the objective causation test for direct discrimination, making it easier to prove discrimination cases by removing the need to show discriminatory intent or motive.

Employment1 min read

Discrimination — James v Eastleigh Borough Council

[1990] 2 AC 751House of Lords1990

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Employment cases →

“Direct discrimination established without need to prove discriminatory intention or motive.”

Facts

James, aged 61, was charged for swimming pool admission while his 61-year-old wife entered free. Eastleigh Council offered free admission to those of pensionable age (60 for women, 65 for men). James claimed this constituted sex discrimination.

Issues

Whether offering benefits based on state pensionable age constitutes direct sex discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and whether discriminatory intention is required.

Held

The House of Lords allowed James's appeal. The council's policy constituted direct sex discrimination despite the absence of discriminatory intent.

Significance

This case established the objective test for direct discrimination, removing the requirement to prove discriminatory intent. The 'but for' causation test remains fundamental to discrimination law, making it easier for claimants to establish direct discrimination cases.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Discrimination — James v Eastleigh Borough Council. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

James v Eastleigh Borough Council [1990] 2 AC 751

Discrimination LawEmployment LawSex DiscriminationPublic Law

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Employment cases

Pepkolaj v Barrett Steel Ltd (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 14

Lamb v Teva UK Ltd (Unfair Dismissal)

[2026] UKEAT 8

J Mayanja v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council

[2026] EAT 7

Anea v OCS UK & I Ltd & Ors (Practice and Procedure)

[2026] UKEAT 21

MacAusland Design Limited v A Portosi

[2026] EAT 51

Chand v EE Ltd (Unfair dismissal; reason for dismissal; composite reason; fairness)

[2026] UKEAT 17

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.