header-logo header-logo

17 March 2011
Issue: 7457 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Employment

Ashby and others v Birmingham City Council [2011] EWHC 424 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 48 (Mar) Queen’s Bench Division Slade J 3 Mar 2011

A court considering whether to strike out an equal pay claim or counterclaim under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 engaged in a two stage process. First, it would decide whether the claim could more conveniently be disposed of separately by an employment tribunal. If the court concluded that the claim could be more conveniently disposed of separately by an employment tribunal it would decide whether to exercise discretion to strike out the claim. Consideration should be given to the facts and circumstances of the particular proceedings and claims before the court.

Proceedings based on an equality clause were based on claims for breach of contract. The appropriateness of disposal of an equal pay claim in an employment tribunal was not determined by whether other claims were included in the proceedings. However, the fact that the only claim in court proceedings was for equal pay was a factor which could be taken

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts

An engagement ring may symbolise romance, but the courts remain decidedly practical about who keeps it after a split, writes Mark Pawlowski, barrister and professor emeritus of property law at the University of Greenwich, in this week's NLJ

Medical reporting organisation fees have become ‘the final battleground’ in modern costs litigation, says Kris Kilsby, costs lawyer at Peak Costs and council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll