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

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