Madarassy v Nomura International plc (2007 EWCA Civ 33; 2007 IRLR 246)

Facts must be such that a reasonable tribunal, having heard all the evidence from both sides, could conclude that the respondent committed (not merely "could have committed") the discriminatory act.

Case facts

Andrea Madarassy was employed as a banker. Shortly after her return from maternity leave she was made redundant, having scored the worst in a redundancy selection process. She brought proceedings complaining of sex discrimination, victimisation and unfair dismissal.


Conclusion for me

A claimant must show more than a difference in sex and a difference in treatment to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The ruling has reinforced the point in Igen v Wong that a claimant must show more than the mere possibility of discrimination before the burden of proof shifts to the respondent: the primary facts must be such that a reasonable tribunal, having heard all the evidence from both sides, could conclude that the respondent committed (not merely "could have committed") the discriminatory act.


Updated: 3rd May, 2021
The Site cannot and does not contain legal advice. The legal information provided is for general informational and educational use only and is not an alternative to consulting a solicitor.
Copyright © 2021 Five Days Management Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
crossmenu-circlecross-circle
error: Alert: Please share a link to this page instead of the content!