header-logo header-logo

Supreme Court clarifies burden of proof

28 July 2021
Issue: 7943 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail
A change in the wording of equality legislation has not altered the burden of proof in discrimination claims, the Supreme Court has unanimously held
Royal Mail Group v Efobi [2021] UKSC 33 concerned an employee, Efobi’s claim for race discrimination in relation to job applications for IT and management roles and harassment based on race, as well as subsequent victimisation for bringing his claim.

Efobi asserted the tribunal had applied the wrong burden of proof to his claim because the Equality Act 2010 made a substantive change in the law to be applied.

Specifically, s 54A(2) of the Race Relations Act 1976 states discrimination or harassment occurs ‘where…the complainant proves facts’ whereas s 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010 states discrimination or harassment occurred ‘if there are facts from which the court could decide…’.

The Supreme Court considered this question of burden of proof and whether adverse inferences could be drawn from Royal Mail’s decision not to call witnesses who had actually dealt with Efobi’s job applications.

In a judgment handed down last week, however, the court dismissed Efobi’s appeal, concluding the change in the language used in the Equality Act ‘has not made any substantive change in the law’.

Jeremy Coy, senior associate at Russell-Cooke, said the decision would ‘come as a relief for employers’.

‘It is not enough for someone to merely assert that they have been discriminated against,’ he said.

‘It’s a general principle of civil law that claimants must provide evidence that shows, on the balance of probabilities, that their allegations are well founded. This decision reinstates the initial understanding of the burden of proof in discrimination cases.

‘A claimant must first show facts that would tend to show discrimination had occurred and it will then be for an employer to provide evidence to show otherwise.’

Issue: 7943 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Slater Heelis—Oliver Banks

Manchester firm strengthens Court of Protection expertise with partner hire

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Talbots Law—Sara Pickerin & Nicholas Playford

Agricultural law team expands with senior director appointments

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

NEWS
Entries are now open for the 2026 LexisNexis Legal Awards, celebrating achievement and innovation in the law across 24 categories
The London Legal Support Trust (LLST) is calling on the legal community to don aprons and sharpen their pencils for two of its most popular fundraising events—the Great Legal Bake and the Great Legal Quiz. The events, which take place in November, raise vital funds for free legal advice charities across London and the South East
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has launched a review of its whiplash policies, including fixed tariffs, statutory definition of the injury, ban on settling cases without medical evidence and small claims limit
Family lawyers have welcomed government plans to repeal the presumption of parental involvement from the Children Act 1989, but emphasised the need for each case to be determined on its facts
Transferring anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing supervision to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) could create extra paperwork and increase costs for clients, lawyers have warned 
back-to-top-scroll