Igen Ltd v Wong
Under the burden of proof rule in discrimination cases, once the claimant proves facts from which discrimination could be inferred, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever because of the protected characteristic.
Facts
The Court of Appeal heard three appeals concerning the burden of proof in discrimination cases, under the provisions which implemented the European Burden of Proof Directive. The question was how tribunals should apply the two stage process, under which the burden of proof shifts to the employer once the claimant has established a prima facie case.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal gave guidance on the two stage test. Peter Gibson LJ said that the claimant must first prove, on the balance of probabilities, facts from which the tribunal could conclude, in the absence of an adequate explanation, that the employer had committed an act of discrimination. If the claimant does so, the burden of proof moves to the employer, who must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the treatment was in no sense whatsoever on the protected ground. Since the facts necessary to prove an explanation would normally be in the possession of the employer, the tribunal would normally expect cogent evidence to discharge that burden. The test is now in section 136 of the Equality Act 2010.
Related cases on discrimination at work
- Archibald v Fife Council [2004] UKHL 32, [2004] ICR 954
- Chief Constable of the West Yorkshire Police v Khan [2001] UKHL 48, [2001] 1 WLR 1947
- Coleman v Attridge Law Case C-303/06, [2008] ECR I-5603
- Essop v Home Office (UK Border Agency) [2017] UKSC 27, [2017] 1 WLR 1343
- Eweida v United Kingdom (2013) 57 EHRR 8
- Forstater v CGD Europe [2022] ICR 1
- Grainger plc v Nicholson [2010] ICR 360
- Homer v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2012] UKSC 15, [2012] ICR 704
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
