header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 April 2007 / Daniel Wise
Issue: 7269 / Categories: Features , Tribunals , Discrimination , Disciplinary&grievance procedures , Employment
printer mail-detail

Shifting burdens

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Daniel Wise reviews the burden of proof test in discrimination claims

Andrea Madarassy was recently unsuccessful in her application to the Court of Appeal in Madarassy v Nomura International Plc [2007] EWCA Civ 33, [2007] All ER (D) 226 (Jan) but she has expressed a desire to appeal to the House of Lords. The Court of Appeal took the opportunity to address the issue of applying the burden of proof test in discrimination cases. However, this may not be the end of the story.

While Lord Justice Mummery’s judgment does not add to or alter the Court of Appeal guidance in Wong v Igen Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 142, [2005] 3 All ER 812, his application of the burden of proof rules provides some useful insights into the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (SDA 1975), s 63A(2).

REDUNDANCY

Madarassy commenced employment with Nomura International plc in January 2000 as a senior banker in the equity capital markets team. Her employment was terminated less than two years later on 22 November

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

Bird & Bird—Gordon Moir

London tech and comms team boosted by telecoms and regulatory hires

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: 40 years on, has PACE lost its edge?
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
NLJ this week: Stress-testing the City
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
NLJ this week: How sure is ‘sure’ enough?
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
NLJ this week: A deferred prosecution reprieve
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
NLJ this week: Mandelson, Epstein & the court of popular opinion
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll