Case Update: Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (t/a Global Artists) and Leicester Theatre Trust Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 253

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Omooba v Michael Garrett Associates Ltd (T/A Global Artists) and Leicester Theatre Trust Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 253 is an important restatement of discrimination law principles for claims under section 13 Equality Act 2010 (“EqA”), as well as reaffirming the high threshold for reopening permission to appeal under CPR 52.30.

Background

In December 2018 Miss Seyi Omooba (“the Appellant”) was offered a leading role as Celie in a musical stage production of Alice Walker’s novel The Colour Purple. The Appellant was represented by her agent Michael Garrett Associates (“the Agent”) and had entered into an employment contract with Leicester Theatre Trust Limited (“the Theatre”).

On 15 March 2019, a day after the Theatre announced the cast for the production, an actor unconnected to the parties tweeted a screenshot of a Facebook post written by the Appellant on 18 September 2014. In that post, the Appellant had expressed her religious beliefs regarding homosexuality which she believed to be sinful and contrary to biblical teaching. The tweet read: “do you still stand by this post? Or are you happy to remain a hypocrite? Seeing as you’ve now been announced to be playing an LGBTQ character…” The tweet gained rapid traction and led to a cascade of events which resulted in both the Theatre and Agent terminating their contracts with the Appellant.

 

The Employment Tribunal’s decision

The Appellant issued a claim for direct discrimination, harassment and indirect discrimination under the EqA in addition to a claim for breach of contract. The ET dismissed all of the Appellant’s claims, finding that the “reason why” each contract was terminated was not the Appellant’s protected beliefs or any manifestation of those beliefs, but by the adverse commercial and reputational consequences arising from the negative publicity. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondents’ costs and was subject to an order regarding her publication of documents from trial.

 

Appeals to the Employment Appeal Tribunal and Court of Appeal

 The EAT upheld the ET’s decision with Eady J confirming that the ET had correctly distinguished between the Respondents’ reasons and motives when terminating the Appellant’s contracts. Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was later refused by Bean LJ, who emphasised that the “reason why” issue was a factual matter for the ET. Bean LJ considered the ET had been entitled to conclude that the Appellant’s religious beliefs or their manifestation were not the operative reasons for her dismissal.

 

An attempt to reopen permission to the appeal under CPR 52.30  

 The Appellant applied under CPR 52.30 to reopen Bean LJ’s refusal to grant her permission to appeal. The Appellant’s written submissions in support of the application were based firmly on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Higgs v Farmor’s School [2025] EWCA Civ 109, [2025] ICR 1172, which had been handed down shortly before permission had been refused in the Appellant’s case.

In Higgs, Mrs Higgs had been dismissed because of the manner in which she expressed her beliefs. The Appellant argued that Bean LJ’s decision to refuse permission to appeal was inconsistent with the Court of Appeal’s earlier decision in Higgs. Falk LJ, giving the leading judgment, rejected the comparison, emphasising that the central issue in the Appellant’s direct discrimination claim was the “reason why” the Respondents acted as they did. Whereas, on the other hand, the “reason why” question in Higgs was uncontroversial (it had been the manner in which Mrs Higgs had expressed her beliefs).

 

Summary

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s application, reiterating the high threshold for reopening appeals under CPR 52.30. This case serves as a useful reminder that the circumstances described in CPR Part 52.30 are truly exceptional. The jurisdiction can only be invoked if it is shown that the integrity of the earlier proceedings has been critically undermined and there must be a powerful probability that a significant injustice has occurred, such as to overbear the pressing claim of finality in litigation.

 

Analysis and review produced by Cameron Taylor, Pupil of Farrar’s Building. 

 

---

• Share article:

---