Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1505 (15 October 2002)

Nelson v Carillion Services Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 1505 (15 October 2002)

Permission to appeal was granted because it is arguable that the employer's reliance on TUPE regulations does not constitute a valid material factor defence under section 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, and that the inherited pay disparity may be tainted by sex discrimination, with the burden of proof resting on the employer.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1505
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Monica Nelson; Respondent/respondent: Carillion Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal
Outcome
permission to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, Transfer of Undertakings (tupe)
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Sex Discrimination Transfer of Undertakings (tupe)

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Nelson

Appellant/applicant

Carillion Services Limited

Respondent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employer's reliance on TUPE regulations constitutes a valid material factor defence under section 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 for maintaining pay disparity between male and female employees performing like work
  2. 2 Whether the inherited pay disparity is tainted by sex discrimination and whether the burden of proof was correctly applied

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to appeal was granted because it is arguable that the employer's reliance on TUPE regulations does not constitute a valid material factor defence under section 1(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, and that the inherited pay disparity may be tainted by sex discrimination, with the burden of proof resting on the employer.

Court Disposition

permission to appeal granted

Orders

  • application allowed