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

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Suzie Fisher

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Suzie Fisher

Cumbria firm appoints long-serving lawyer as new managing director

Taylor Wessing—Kim Wedral

Taylor Wessing—Kim Wedral

Employment specialist joins Cambridge office as partner

Mewburn Ellis—Amy Crouch

Mewburn Ellis—Amy Crouch

Patent litigation offering boosted by partner appointment

NEWS
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has published a statement in a bid to clear up confusion over the right to conduct litigation following Mazur and another v Charles Russell Speechleys
Homebuyers could be given an option to sign a binding contract with vendors to protect against the practice of parties pulling out of agreements after months of negotiations, under a proposed overhaul of conveyancing laws
A future Conservative government would abolish the Sentencing Council and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) and sack judges who defended migrants’ rights, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has said
UK law firms have risen up an annual index of responsible business activity, while US firms have regressed amid President Trump’s diversity and equality crackdown
The right of the press to report on the criminal courts received a boost this week, following an update to the Criminal Procedure Rules
back-to-top-scroll