header-logo header-logo

Equal pay landmark

30 October 2012
Issue: 7536 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Supreme Court: equal pay claims can be held in civil courts

Hundreds of women have been granted leave to bring equal pay claims dating back six years, in a landmark Supreme Court judgment.

Ruling in Birmingham City Council v Abdulla & Ors [2012] UKSC 47, the court held that equal pay cases can be heard in the civil courts, where the time limit is six years, rather than the employment tribunal, where the time limit is six months.

Leigh Day & Co partner Chris Benson, who acted for the women, says the judgment effectively extends the time limit for equal pay claims, and is the biggest change to equal pay legislation since it was introduced in 1970.

The women say that they were employed on work rated as equivalent with that of their male comparators, but that their contracts did not provide for the substantial bonuses and other additional payments that were given to the men.

The case centred on the interpretation of s 2(3) of  the Equal Pay Act 1970 (EPA 1970), under which claims can be struck out by the courts if they can be “more conveniently disposed of separately by an employment tribunal”.

Lord Wilson, delivering the lead judgment, held that the courts should not strike out equal pay claims if they would be out of time in the employment tribunal.

His reasons were that EPA 1970 has no provision for the time limit to be extended at the discretion of the court or tribunal, and s 2(4) is worded so as to suggest equal pay claims in the employment tribunal are exempt from time limits.

A Birmingham City Council spokesperson says: “Equal pay litigation until now has always been pursued in employment tribunals, as these tribunals are experienced and specifically trained in dealing with such claims. In addition, there are very limited situations where costs follow the losing party, whereas in the civil court costs almost always follow the losing party.”

Issue: 7536 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll