Tesco Stores Limited v K Element & Ors

Tesco Stores Limited v K Element & Ors

The tribunal did not fundamentally err in its legal approach to the definition of 'work' under s.65(6) Equality Act 2010; it was entitled to give weight to training materials as evidence of employer requirements, provided it did not disregard actual work performed. However, the tribunal erred in law in certain specific findings: it wrongly excluded or mischaracterised material job facts (including performance targets, time pressures, risks, hazards, faulty equipment, working hours, physical effort, monitoring, working environment, and mental arithmetic) by applying an incorrect legal test (e.g. focusing on what a reasonable employer would require, or failing to state obvious but relevant...

Parties
Appellant: Tesco Stores Limited; Respondents: Ms K Element and Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal Equal Pay Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Stage 2 Findings, With Disposal to Be Determined at a Subsequent Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; certain grounds of appeal upheld, others dismissed; disposal to be determined at a subsequent hearing.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Work of Equal Value, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Fact Finding, Training Materials as Evidence
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Work of Equal Value Employment Tribunal Procedure Fact Finding Training Materials as Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Appellant

Ms K Element and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal Equal Pay Appeal / Appeal Judgment on Stage 2 Findings, With Disposal to Be Determined at a Subsequent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct legal definition of 'work' for equal value claims under s.65(6) Equality Act 2010?
  2. 2 Did the tribunal err in law by focusing on employer requirements and training materials rather than actual work performed?
  3. 3 Did the tribunal fail to determine all relevant facts and/or disregard agreed facts?

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal did not fundamentally err in its legal approach to the definition of 'work' under s.65(6) Equality Act 2010; it was entitled to give weight to training materials as evidence of employer requirements, provided it did not disregard actual work performed. However, the tribunal erred in law in certain specific findings: it wrongly excluded or mischaracterised material job facts (including performance targets, time pressures, risks, hazards, faulty equipment, working hours, physical effort, monitoring, working environment, and mental arithmetic) by applying an incorrect legal test (e.g. focusing on what a reasonable employer would require, or failing to state obvious but relevant...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; certain grounds of appeal upheld, others dismissed; disposal to be determined at a subsequent hearing.

Orders

  • Appeal grounds A2G4, A1G6, A2G5, A2G6, A2G7, A2G9, A2G10, A2G11 upheld; A2G1 and A2G8 succeed in part; A2G2, A1G1, A1G2, A2G3, A1G8, A1G5, and A1G7 (re Mrs Worthington) dismissed.
  • Case remitted for further case management and directions to ensure findings of fact are clarified and provided in a format suitable for the independent experts and Stage 3 hearing.