Tesco Stores Limited v K Element & Ors

Tesco Stores Limited v K Element & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal did not err in law in treating training documents as the primary evidence of job content in the context of highly regulated, generic roles, nor in declining to make findings about the specific training each jobholder received, unless mandatory for the role. The ET was wrong, however, to disregard facts agreed by the parties. Appeals against ET determinations after a stage 2 equal value hearing must specify each challenged factual determination unless a general error of law is alleged. The appeals were dismissed except on the ground relating to disregarding agreed facts.

Parties
Appellant: Tesco Stores Limited; Respondents: Ms K Element and Others; Respondents: Ms K Element and Others (Harcus claimants)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 May 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (employment/equal Pay) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal against EAT (2) allowed on ground 3 (disregard of agreed facts); otherwise, all appeals dismissed.
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Sex Discrimination, Employment Tribunal Procedure, Statutory Interpretation
Employment Law Equality Law Equal Pay Sex Discrimination Employment Tribunal Procedure Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco Stores Limited

Appellant

Ms K Element and Others

Respondents

Ms K Element and Others (Harcus claimants)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (employment/equal Pay) / Appeal From Employment Appeal Tribunal to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of 'work' under sections 64 and 65 of the Equality Act 2010
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law in its approach to factual determinations after a stage 2 equal value hearing
  3. 3 Whether the ET was entitled to rely primarily on training documents as evidence of job content

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Tribunal did not err in law in treating training documents as the primary evidence of job content in the context of highly regulated, generic roles, nor in declining to make findings about the specific training each jobholder received, unless mandatory for the role. The ET was wrong, however, to disregard facts agreed by the parties. Appeals against ET determinations after a stage 2 equal value hearing must specify each challenged factual determination unless a general error of law is alleged. The appeals were dismissed except on the ground relating to disregarding agreed facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal against EAT (2) allowed on ground 3 (disregard of agreed facts); otherwise, all appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on ground 3 of EAT (2) (ET cannot disregard facts agreed by the parties).
  • All other grounds of appeal dismissed.