Atabo v Kings College London & Ors James Newman Patricia Methven Madeleine Law [2007] EWCA Civ 324 (19 April 2007)

Atabo v Kings College London & Ors James Newman Patricia Methven Madeleine Law [2007] EWCA Civ 324 (19 April 2007)

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The Tribunal was entitled to reject her evidence and was not required to apply the two-stage burden of proof process. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's approach or reasoning.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 324
Parties
Appellant: ATABO; 1st Respondent: KINGS COLLEGE LONDON; 2nd Respondent: JAMES NEWMAN; 3rd Respondent: PATRICIA METHVEN; 4th Respondent: MADELEINE LAW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Race Discrimination, Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Breach of Contract, Burden of Proof, Procedural Fairness
Employment Law Discrimination Law Sex Discrimination Race Discrimination Sexual Harassment Victimisation Breach of Contract Burden of Proof +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ATABO

Appellant

KINGS COLLEGE LONDON

1st Respondent

JAMES NEWMAN

2nd Respondent

PATRICIA METHVEN

3rd Respondent

MADELEINE LAW

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal / Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the two-stage burden of proof process in discrimination cases as set out in Igen v Wong
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's reasons were inadequate
  3. 3 Whether there were procedural failures affecting fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination. The Tribunal was entitled to reject her evidence and was not required to apply the two-stage burden of proof process. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's approach or reasoning.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; application dismissed.