header-logo header-logo

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

Equal pay landmark

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

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
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 
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
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
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’
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’ 
back-to-top-scroll