Khan v Royal Mail Group & Ors (Race Discrimination) [2012] UKEAT 0160_11_2901 (29 January 2013)
The Tribunal's findings of fact were sufficient and not perverse; the burden of proof was properly considered; the Tribunal's reasoning, though sometimes muddled, was clear overall and did not betray any error of law. The appeal fails as no legal error was established.
- Citation
- [2012] UKEAT 0160_11_2901
- Parties
- Appellant: Mr Khan; Respondent: Royal Mail; Respondent: Adele Allen; Respondent: David Wakefield; Respondent: Sue Beech
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 29 January 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Race Discrimination, Religious Discrimination, Harassment, Victimisation, Burden of Proof, Tribunal Reasoning
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mr Khan
Appellant
Royal Mail
Respondent
Adele Allen
Respondent
David Wakefield
Respondent
Sue Beech
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its findings on race and religious discrimination and harassment
- 2 Whether the Tribunal failed to shift the burden of proof to the employer
- 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to adequately explain its reasoning
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's findings of fact were sufficient and not perverse; the burden of proof was properly considered; the Tribunal's reasoning, though sometimes muddled, was clear overall and did not betray any error of law. The appeal fails as no legal error was established.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment