Nature of agency

Case 6: The facts

A number of appeals were heard together in this case, in which police officers claimed that the handling of disciplinary hearings had been discriminatory. The common issue was whether the police commissioner was responsible for any acts of discrimination carried out by the officer appointed to carry out the disciplinary action.

The ruling

The EAT held that a police officer appointed as investigating or supervising officer in police disciplinary proceedings is not an "agent" of the chief officer. The commissioner was therefore not liable for any unlawful discrimination by that officer.

The main issue in this case was specific to the police force and its internal rules, but the EAT did look at the legal definition of an agent. It held that there must be a "fiduciary relationship" between the parties, with express or implied consent that one is acting on the other's behalf.

Yearwood and others v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and others UKEAT/0310/03