BMC Software Ltd v Shaikh

BMC Software Ltd v Shaikh

The Employment Tribunal's reasons for rejecting BMC's material factor defence were sufficiently explained by its findings and reasoning; the EAT was wrong to find them inadequate. The Tribunal identified specific evidential gaps and failures by BMC to particularise or evidence the factors relied on. The cross-appeal was allowed and the EAT's order set aside.

Parties
Appellant: BMC Software Limited; Respondent: Anjumara Shaikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Cross-appeal allowed; EAT's order set aside; original Tribunal decision restored.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Material Factor Defence, Adequacy of Reasons
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Sex Discrimination Burden of Proof Material Factor Defence Adequacy of Reasons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BMC Software Limited

Appellant

Anjumara Shaikh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal gave adequate reasons for rejecting the employer's material factor defence to an equal pay claim
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Appeal Tribunal was correct to remit the case to the same tribunal for further reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal's reasons for rejecting BMC's material factor defence were sufficiently explained by its findings and reasoning; the EAT was wrong to find them inadequate. The Tribunal identified specific evidential gaps and failures by BMC to particularise or evidence the factors relied on. The cross-appeal was allowed and the EAT's order set aside.

Court Disposition

Cross-appeal allowed; EAT's order set aside; original Tribunal decision restored.