Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Efobi

Section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010 did not alter the substantive law regarding the burden of proof in discrimination cases; the initial burden remains on the claimant to prove facts from which discrimination can be inferred. The tribunal was not required to draw adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to call actual decision-makers, and was entitled to dismiss the claim based on the evidence presented.

Parties
Respondent: Royal Mail Group Ltd; Appellant: Efobi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Direct Discrimination, Adverse Inference, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Equality Law Burden of Proof Direct Discrimination Adverse Inference Equality Act 2010

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 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mail Group Ltd

Respondent

Efobi

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010 altered the burden of proof in discrimination cases
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal should have drawn adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to call actual decision-makers as witnesses

Ratio Decidendi

Section 136(2) of the Equality Act 2010 did not alter the substantive law regarding the burden of proof in discrimination cases; the initial burden remains on the claimant to prove facts from which discrimination can be inferred. The tribunal was not required to draw adverse inferences from the respondent's failure to call actual decision-makers, and was entitled to dismiss the claim based on the evidence presented.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed