header-logo header-logo

19 April 2023
Issue: 8021 / Categories: Legal News , Employment , Procedure & practice , Equality
printer mail-detail

Technicality did not halt case for Sainsbury's workers

Sainsbury’s has lost its Court of Appeal bid to stop equal pay claims on the basis of a mistake in a reference number.

The supermarket giant argued that 700 claims submitted to the employment tribunal eight years ago should have been struck out because they did not include the correct reference number from a certificate issued by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) showing they had completed the early conciliation process.

Delivering judgment this month in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v Clark and others [2023] EWCA Civ 386, however, Lord Justice Bean said: ‘These are highly technical applications lacking any substantive merit.

‘When industrial tribunals were established more than half a century ago the purpose of Parliament was to create a speedy and informal system free from technicalities. It has been repeatedly stated that employment tribunals should do their best not to place artificial barriers in the way of genuine claims.

‘It should be emphasised that there is no suggestion that any of these claimants failed to make the necessary reference to ACAS before the claim was issued, nor that any of them failed to obtain a certificate by ACAS demonstrating that such a reference had been made. The complaint is no more and no less than that the employment tribunal claim form did not give the appropriate certificate number.’

Leigh Day partners Linda Wong and Lauren Lougheed, representing the workers, said: ‘Women are still being paid less than men more than 60 years after the introduction of equal pay laws.

‘Sainsbury’s had a choice about defending these claims on their merits, or trying to reduce the number of claimants by making “highly technical applications”.’

The claims, which could result in tens of thousands of pounds in back pay being awarded if successful, will now move to an employment tribunal hearing scheduled for March 2024.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
In this week’s NLJ, Fred Philpott, Gough Square Chambers, invites us to imagine there was no statutory limitation. What would that world be like?
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
back-to-top-scroll