About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] NICA 24
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  NI Court of Appeal
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Michael Humphreys

Delivering judgment for the Court of Appeal, Mr Justice Michael Humphreys opined: “In his grounds of appeal, the appellant has made scurrilous and wholly unfounded allegations against the respondent’s legal advisors, employment judges and judges of this court. These are wanton and baseless and are rejected by this court in their entirety.”

The appellant was unrepresented. Barry Mulqueen appeared for the Respondent instructed by Lewis Silkin (NI) LLP.

Background

On 27 June 2019, the respondent, Queen’s University Belfast (QUB) advertised for the position of Senior Lecturer/Reader in Management. 

The appellant, along with 14 other candidates, applied for the role. On 13 August 2019, a shortlisting panel reviewed each of the applications. It did not select the appellant to go forward for interview.

On 2 November 2019, the appellant applied to the Industrial Tribunals and the Fair Employment Tribunal alleging that QUB had unlawfully discriminated against him on grounds of race and religious beliefs and that he had been victimised. 

The Tribunal

The tribunal dismissed the appellant’s complaints, finding no evidence of discrimination on grounds of race or religion generally, no evidence of manipulation of the selection process on those grounds, and no evidence of a wider conspiracy to deny the university and its students of the services of someone who was eminently suitable for the role on racial and/or religious grounds.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal pursuant to Article 90 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, Article 22 of the Industrial Tribunals (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 and Order 60B of the Rules of the Court of Judicature (Northern Ireland) 1980.

The grounds of appeal concerned alleged bias on part of the tribunal, errors of law relating to the application of discrimination jurisprudence, perversity and want of reasons and the alleged failure on part of the tribunal to draw an adverse inference, procedural unfairness, victimisation and an alleged failure on part of the tribunal to consider his claims of indirect discrimination and victimisation.

The Court of Appeal

At the outset of his judgment, Mr Justice Humphreys explained inter alia that a previous decision of the Court of Appeal in Deman v QUB [2022] NICA 23 had set out some of the history of litigation between the appellant and QUB and with various other entities. 

The court also noted that in 2006, a “restriction of proceedings” order had been imposed on the appellant in England & Wales where the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) found that he had habitually and persistently instigated vexatious proceedings before the employment tribunals and made vexatious applications for adjournments, for witness orders and for the recusal of tribunal members. 

The court further considered HM Attorney General v Deman [2006] UKEAT 0113/06/RN, in which the EAT recorded at least 40 claims brought by the appellant before the employment tribunals between 1996 and 2005, mainly alleging racial discrimination against him by academic institutions in respect of approximately 70 posts for which he was not shortlisted or appointed and regularly including allegations of bias and racism against lawyers, tribunal staff and tribunal members.
 
Mr Justice Humphreys set out the procedural history of the appeal before the court, noting that the appellant had applied for a number of adjournments on various grounds and had contested the hearing being held remotely, but ultimately did not appear at the hearing of the appeal leaving the court to proceed to a paper determination.

The court considered the evidence before the tribunal, to the effect that the QUB panel had concluded that the appellant’s publications fell short of the level required by the relevant essential criterion and which had been set out in the candidate information booklet, and that three candidates had been shortlisted for interview, one white British Protestant, one Chinese of no religion and one other Asian candidate of no religion.

Mr Justice Humphreys noted the appellant’s allegation that the selection of the shortlisted applicants was “a “typical ploy of the respondent to inject a white RC or Protestant” and asserted that the Chinese candidate was shortlisted only to create a comparator to fight a future claim.”

Turning to the first ground of appeal, that inter alia the Employment Judge ought to have recused himself due to bias against people of ethnic minority backgrounds, the Court of Appeal considered that the standard of the fair-minded and informed observer as set out in Porter v Magill applied.

Finding no evidence of bias or predisposition, the court then considered whether any errors of law were made by the tribunal, concluding that properly analysed, “the appellant’s arguments are complaints about the tribunal’s findings of fact and conclusions.”

The court had regard to Carlson Wagonlit Travel v Connor [2007] NICA 55, reasoning: “The tribunal’s decision in this case could not be categorised as perverse. It set out the relevant law, summarised the evidence heard, made findings and reached conclusions, giving coherent reasons for so doing.”

Mr Justice Humphreys also considered that the appellant was not subject to any unfair disadvantage, having been afforded “every opportunity” to challenge the respondent’s witnesses and to present his own case. In this regard, the judge highlighted: “Simply because the appellant does not agree with the outcome does not give rise to an error of law which can be relied upon in an appeal.”

The court was also unconvinced by the appellant’s challenge to the findings of the tribunal in respect of inter alia an alleged “blanket ban”  upon his appointment to any role within the respondent, which he contended to have arisen from an agreement entered into in 2005 whereby the appellant would not apply for any post at QUB for a period of five years.

Mr Justice Humphreys further considered that there was no evidence that the application by the QUB panel of an “enhanced criterion” in respect of publications gave rise to any substantial disadvantage to those of a particular race of religious belief and that the tribunal was entitled to reject that complaint.

As to the contention that the respondent’s conduct called for the drawing of an adverse inference by the tribunal that the respondent’s decision not to shortlist him was motivated by racial and/or religious discrimination, the Court of Appeal applied the test laid down in Royal Mail v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33, finding that this ground was manifestly misconceived.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and ordered costs against the appellant.

The court also indicated its intention to refer the appellant to the Attorney General for Northern Ireland in order that she may consider whether to bring a “restriction on proceedings” application under s.32 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978.

Suresh Deman v Queen’s University Belfast [2025] NICA 24