Loading…

And indeed the point is well made that he was recruited by Mr Flynn, allowed training and experience opportunities by him and was well regarded. Discussion and Decision 118. The question of who must prove what in discrimination claims has been a vexed and contentious issue that has led to considerable legal commentary on the interpretation of the statutory provisions set out in Section of the Equality Act 2010. 119. Before the burden of proof provisions, the leading authority was King v Great British-China Centre. In that case the Court of Appeal in England held that the Tribunal had been entitled to draw an inference of discrimination as the — employment tribunal cases | Tribunal Watch

Tribunal WatchEmployersAnd indeed the point is well made that he was recruited by Mr Flynn, allowed training and experience opportunities by him and was well regarded. Discussion and Decision 118. The question of who must prove what in discrimination claims has been a vexed and contentious issue that has led to considerable legal commentary on the interpretation of the statutory provisions set out in Section of the Equality Act 2010. 119. Before the burden of proof provisions, the leading authority was King v Great British-China Centre. In that case the Court of Appeal in England held that the Tribunal had been entitled to draw an inference of discrimination as the

Employer file

And indeed the point is well made that he was recruited by Mr Flynn, allowed training and experience opportunities by him and was well regarded. Discussion and Decision 118. The question of who must prove what in discrimination claims has been a vexed and contentious issue that has led to considerable legal commentary on the interpretation of the statutory provisions set out in Section of the Equality Act 2010. 119. Before the burden of proof provisions, the leading authority was King v Great British-China Centre. In that case the Court of Appeal in England held that the Tribunal had been entitled to draw an inference of discrimination as the

Since 2017, And indeed the point is well made that he was recruited by Mr Flynn, allowed training and experience opportunities by him and was well regarded. Discussion and Decision 118. The question of who must prove what in discrimination claims has been a vexed and contentious issue that has led to considerable legal commentary on the interpretation of the statutory provisions set out in Section of the Equality Act 2010. 119. Before the burden of proof provisions, the leading authority was King v Great British-China Centre. In that case the Court of Appeal in England held that the Tribunal had been entitled to draw an inference of discrimination as the has appeared as a respondent in 1 employment tribunal case, with £0 in total awards recorded against the employer.

Indexed: 23 September 2026

Total cases: 1
Total awarded against: £0
Largest award: —
Most common claim: Race discrimination

Cases by claim type

1 distinct category

#	Claim type	Cases	Relative share
01	Race discrimination	1

All cases

1 case · page 1 of 1 · chronological

Case ref.	Decided	Jurisdiction	Claimant	Claim types	Award
8001901/2024	14 August 2026	Scotland	Mr J Katkoria	Race discrimination	—

Methodology

Data extracted from published employment tribunal judgments on gov.uk. Case reference, decision date, judge, venue and claim categories come from structured metadata. Claimant and respondent names are extracted from the judgment PDF text, and a second LLM-assisted pass adds per-claim outcomes, key findings, and any compensation awarded. Many UK tribunal decisions are liability-only — the remedy is set at a later hearing — so a case can correctly show an outcome with no award figure. See how the data is built.