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

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll