E Ewome v BMAT Education

E Ewome v BMAT Education

The ET was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence, that the reason for the claimant's detriment was performance-related and not race; the burden of proof did not shift, and the exclusion of live evidence from the comparator was within the ET's discretion and did not materially affect the outcome.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Ms E Ewome; Respondent: BMAT Education (formerly known as Burnt Mill Academy Trust)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Burden of Proof, Race Discrimination, Comparators, Case Management, Admissibility of Evidence
Employment Equality Burden of Proof Race Discrimination Comparators Case Management Admissibility of Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms E Ewome

Appellant

BMAT Education (formerly known as Burnt Mill Academy Trust)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Employment Tribunal err in law by failing to shift the burden of proof under section 136 of the Equality Act 2010?
  2. 2 Did the Employment Tribunal commit a procedural irregularity in refusing to admit live evidence from a comparator, Ms Sarah Viccars?

Ratio Decidendi

The ET was entitled to conclude, based on the evidence, that the reason for the claimant's detriment was performance-related and not race; the burden of proof did not shift, and the exclusion of live evidence from the comparator was within the ET's discretion and did not materially affect the outcome.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed