Home / Employment / Equality, diversity and inclusion / Employment tribunal equality claims

Legal News

Claimant does not carry an initial burden of proof in claims under the Equality Act 2010 (Efobi v Royal Mail Group)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 16 August 2017

Published by a LexisNexis Employment expert

Table of contents

Original news
What is the impact of this case?
What are the relevant background law?
What were the facts?
What issues were raised on appeal?
What did the EAT decide?
Case details

Article summary

Employment analysis: Section 136 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010) (the burden of proof provision) requires an employment tribunal to consider all the evidence, not just the claimant’s evidence, when deciding whether or not there are facts from which facts it could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that the respondent had contravened the Act, according to the EAT.

Popular documents

Harassment

HarassmentSTOP PRESS—Impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023: This document contains references to retained EU law (REUL) and associated terms introduced by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in connection with Brexit. From 1 January 2024, REUL that remains in force is

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companies

Priority between loss reliefs in loss making companiesWhy does it matter?A company that is a member of a group and has incurred any of the types of losses available for surrender by way of group relief may, without any further rules, have more than one way in which to use the loss. There are a

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?

What is the difference between an appeal and a review?What is an appeal?An appeal in insolvency proceedings is no different to an appeal in normal litigation. An appeal will be allowed only if the appeal court is satisfied that the decision of the lower court was 'wrong' or 'unjust because of a

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the

If a rentcharge is shown as being informally exonerated on title information, does this apply to the current registered owner? Or does the informal exoneration only apply to the parties to the document which informally exonerated the rentcharge?This Q&A considers the situation where, at some