Atabo v Kings College London & Ors James Newman Patricia Methven Madeleine Law

Atabo v Kings College London & Ors James Newman Patricia Methven Madeleine Law

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal was not required to apply the two-stage burden of proof analysis or consider comparators. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's approach or conclusions.

Parties
Appellant: Sandra 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
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal 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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandra Atabo

Appellant

Kings College London

1st Respondent

James Newman

2nd Respondent

Patricia Methven

3rd Respondent

Madeleine Law

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by failing to apply the two-stage burden of proof analysis in discrimination claims as required by Igen v Wong
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal's reasons were adequate
  3. 3 Whether there were procedural irregularities amounting to unfairness

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination on the facts. Therefore, the Tribunal was not required to apply the two-stage burden of proof analysis or consider comparators. There was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's approach or conclusions.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed