header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
02 November 2012
Issue: 7536 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Employment—Equality of treatment of men and women—Equal pay for equal work

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and others [2012] UKSC 47

Supreme Court, Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed and Lord Carnwath, 24 October 2012

On the true construction of the first part of s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 (EPA 1970) and s 128(1) of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), a claim in respect of the operation of an equality clause can never be more conveniently disposed of by the tribunal if it would thereby be time-barred.

Andrew Short QC and Naomi Ling (instructed by Leigh Day & Co) for the claimants. Paul Espstein QC, Louise Chudleigh and Nathan Caiden (instructed by Birmingham City Council Legal and Democratic Services) for the authority.

The claimants were formerly employed by the defendant local authority and were mostly women. They brought an equal pay claim against the authority in the High Court. The claims would have been out of time had they been issued in the employment tribunal,

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
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll