Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Employer equal pay appeal partly succeeded: the EAT upheld most findings on particular disadvantage and direct discrimination, but overturned the basic pay justification analysis.
Tesco Stores Ltd v Element & Ors [2026] EWCA Civ 580 (12 May 2026)
Court of Appeal decision in an equal pay dispute about the meaning of “work” under the Equality Act 2010 and the proper scope of EAT appeals.
Court of Appeal in an equal pay appeal held that training materials could be primary evidence of job content in this highly regulated, generic workplace, but agreed facts could not be disregarded.
Section 41 Equality Act 2010 does not permit a contract worker to bring a race discrimination claim against a principal regarding pay disparity with directly employed staff, even where the principal has a contractual power to uplift pay; the claim concerns rights under the employer-worker contract, not the principal-worker relationship. The single source principle does not apply in this context. The claim does not meet the requirements for indirect discrimination under section 19 EqA. Article 14 ECHR does not require a different interpretation, as there is no relevant mismatch and the circums…
Source excerpt
Equal pay appeal on the material factor defence under s.69 Equality Act 2010. The EAT found error in the indirect discrimination analysis and remitted the case.
The tribunal must remit only those parts of the decisions under appeal that fall within the successful grounds of appeal, using a revised comprehensive record of dispute/EVJD in spreadsheet format to clarify agreed and disputed facts, with succinct summaries of training materials. The remittal is not to be broadened beyond the successful grounds except where a matter of principle or clear error applies across comparators.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal erred in law by failing to clarify the procedural basis for strike out, not providing adequate notice or opportunity for submissions, and not addressing statutory tests or claimant's arguments regarding the job evaluation report's reliability and potential discrimination. The equal value claim strike out was inadequately reasoned and materially unfair.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal set aside orders permitting economist evidence in a Tesco equal pay case, holding the tribunal had not properly identified the issues.
The claimant's employment had a sufficient connection with Great Britain from 1 March 2017 onwards, making her claims justiciable under UK employment legislation. The Employment Tribunal had international jurisdiction to determine the claims, as the Brussels Regulation did not bar jurisdiction and domestic law conferred it. Service of claim documents via the London bureau was sufficient.
Source excerpt
The Employment Appeal Tribunal dismissed an equal pay appeal on job evaluation reliability, holding the tribunal was entitled to reject the “one bad apple” argument.
Explore more
