The Court of Appeal has, today, handed down its decision in Madarassy v Nomura, dealing with the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
Essentially, it upholds the two-stage approach in the House of Lords' judgment in Igen v Wong. To that extent, it says little new. However, it contains a useful example of working through the burden of proof provisions in a factually complex case. Likewise, the same exercise is undertaken in two other cases handed down simultaneously: Appiah v Bishop Douglass Roman Catholic High School and Brown v Croydon
Somewhat tongue in cheek, my favourite part of the Madarassy judgment is para. 16, where Mummery LJ refuses to lay down yet further layers of complexity about the burden of proof, saying "Repetition is superfluous, qualification is unnessary and contradiction is confusing."
Thanks to Victoria Parry of Osborne Clarke, who successfully represented Nomura, for telling me about this decision
Madarassy v Nomura