The claimant, who was accepted to be disabled, had resigned after her requests for working from home were refused. She also alleged that the management wanted her to leave and she was offered a termination payment. The ET dismissed the claims..

In this judgment HHJ Tayler looks at the burden of proof. After reviewing the case law, including Hewage and Igen he finds at [49] that the tribunal had not considered the burden of proof at all and “this fundamental failure to grapple with significant evidence that suggested there could have been discrimination means that the “determinations that there was no discrimination” were unsafe. He goes on ”Either the law has not been properly applied or the employment tribunal has failed to give any explanation of how it has been applied” and had failed to address the claimant’s argument that the burden of proof had shifted. The case was remitted to a different tribunal to reconsider this and other successful grounds of appeal.