Royal Bank of Scotland v Nwosuagwu-Ibe - Victimisation not particularised in claim, and burden of proof  EAT
Tribunal was wrong to find victimisation in relation to a matter which had not been particularised as such in claim form or witness statements. EAT repeats the position that - under Race Relations Act 1976, the reverse burden of proof does not apply to victimisation claims (note that this is no longer the case under the Equality Act 2010).
The EAT agreed with the tribunal that a Bank branch manager had not been unfairly dismissed in relation to procedural oversights which enabled a large fraud to take place but disagreed with the tribunal’s finding of one instance of victimisation. The complaint concerned a ‘Bronze Alert’ (an emergency audio telephone conference which Mrs Nwosuagwu-ibe failed to join or provide explanation for). The tribunal had found, on the balance of probabilities, the extension of the fraud investigation to include the Bronze Alert was unreasonable and, in the absence of adequate explanation, was victimisation even though this incident was not particularised as such in her original claim.