header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 July 2019 / Shane Crawford
Issue: 7850 / Categories: Features , Employment , Discrimination
printer mail-detail

A shared responsibility: compare & contrast

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Do low rates of statutory pay for shared parental leave discriminate against the non-birthing partner? Shane Crawford analyses the arguments
  • The Court of Appeal has made clear that the non-birthing partner of a mother who wishes to take shared parental leave is not being discriminated against because of his sex directly or indirectly.

The Court of Appeal has provided some clear guidance about the issue of appropriate comparator in the context of lower rates of pay for shared parental leave when compared to contractual maternity leave pay (Ali v Capita Customer Management Ltd (Working Families intervening); Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police v Hextall (Working Families intervening); Hextall v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police (Working Families intervening)  [2019] EWCA Civ 900, [2019] All ER (D) 18 (Jun)).

The issue raised by non-birthing partners when seeking shared parental leave is that employers regularly pay only the statutory rate of pay, not the contractual rate of pay. The argument is that had the non-birthing partner taken maternity leave he or she

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Sidley—Jeremy Trinder

Global finance group strengthened by returning partner in London

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Driving test fraudsters steer towards jail
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
NLJ this week: Deepfakes demand data law muscle
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
NLJ this week: 40% penalty for coercive control
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
NLJ this week: Mbappé row spotlights ‘ethics bonuses’
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
NLJ this week: Appeal court reins in ‘wrong defendant’ switcheroo

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll