Aird & Ors v Asda Stores Ltd & Anor (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - EQUAL PAY) [2024] EAT 52 (16 April 2024)

Aird & Ors v Asda Stores Ltd & Anor (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - EQUAL PAY) [2024] EAT 52 (16 April 2024)

The Employment Judge was entitled to recognise that inequality between groups of claimants may flow from their choice of representative and that the right to equal footing is not absolute; he did not fail to take into account relevant factors and his decision was not perverse, falling well within his case management discretion.

Citation
[2024] EAT 52
Parties
Appellant: Ms E Aird and Others; Respondent: Asda Stores Ltd; Respondent: Mrs S Brierley and Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Equal Pay, Case Management, Multi Claimant Litigation
Employment Law Practice and Procedure Equal Pay Case Management Multi Claimant Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms E Aird and Others

Appellant

Asda Stores Ltd

Respondent

Mrs S Brierley and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Employment Judge erred in refusing Keller Postman's application to be provided with all correspondence and documents passing between the parties in the Brierley Multiple
  2. 2 Whether the Employment Judge failed to take into account relevant factors or took irrelevant factors into account
  3. 3 Whether the Employment Judge reached a perverse decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Judge was entitled to recognise that inequality between groups of claimants may flow from their choice of representative and that the right to equal footing is not absolute; he did not fail to take into account relevant factors and his decision was not perverse, falling well within his case management discretion.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed