EAT Application of the burden of proof: Shamoon v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary  ICR 337; Igen v Wong  ICR 935; Laing v Manchester City Council  ICR 1519; Madarassy v Nomura International plc  ICR 867 followed.
Multiple allegations of discrimination requiring the Tribunal to determine each complaint whilst still taking a holistic – not a fragmented – approach, so as to enable it to see the bigger picture: Qureshi v Victoria University of Manchester  ICR 863; Fearon v Chief Constable of Derbyshire  UKEAT/0445/02; Rihal v London Borough of Ealing  IRLR 642; and X v Y  UKEAT/0322/12 applied.
In this case the Tribunal had correctly applied the burden of proof and demonstrated that it had considered the detail of the individual complaints; those complaints as part of more general themes and also the bigger picture more generally: it had kept sight of both the wood and the trees and no error of law was disclosed.
Eady QC J
 UKEAT 0155 – 13 – 0506
England and Wales
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526261