Scottish Water v Lynne Edgar

Scottish Water v Lynne Edgar

The Tribunal materially misdirected itself in law by treating identification of the pay decision-maker as essential to the material factor defence and by excluding relevant comparative evidence. Causation is an objective matter and does not require proof of the subjective thought process of a specific decision-maker. The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside and the preliminary issue remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Parties
Appellant: Scottish Water; Respondent: Lynne Edgar
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing
Outcome
Tribunal judgment set aside; preliminary issue remitted to a different Tribunal; bias ground not considered further.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Material Factor Defence, Sex Discrimination, Burden of Proof, Recruitment Pay Disparity
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Material Factor Defence Sex Discrimination Burden of Proof Recruitment Pay Disparity

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scottish Water

Appellant

Lynne Edgar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal From Employment Tribunal Preliminary Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to the material factor defence under section 69 Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether identification of the pay decision-maker is essential to a material factor defence
  3. 3 Whether evidence of comparative skills and abilities after appointment is relevant

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal materially misdirected itself in law by treating identification of the pay decision-maker as essential to the material factor defence and by excluding relevant comparative evidence. Causation is an objective matter and does not require proof of the subjective thought process of a specific decision-maker. The Tribunal’s judgment was set aside and the preliminary issue remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal.

Court Disposition

Tribunal judgment set aside; preliminary issue remitted to a different Tribunal; bias ground not considered further.

Orders

  • Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Tribunal’s judgment of 8 February 2023 set aside
  • Preliminary issue on material factor defence remitted to a differently constituted Tribunal