Tesco Stores Ltd v DElement & Ors [2024] EAT 83 (23 May 2024)

Tesco Stores Ltd v DElement & Ors [2024] EAT 83 (23 May 2024)

The tribunal's disclosure orders and case management decisions were within its discretion, proportionate, and not legally erroneous or perverse. There was no requirement for the claimants to plead discrimination in advance of Tesco's particularised MFDs. The appeal on grounds 1 and 2 is dismissed; grounds 3 and 4 are not permitted to proceed.

Citation
[2024] EAT 83
Parties
Appellant: Tesco Stores Ltd; Respondents: Ms K Element & Others
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
23 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Combined Full Hearing (grounds 1 and 2) and Preliminary Hearing (grounds 3 and 4)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on grounds 1 and 2; grounds 3 and 4 not permitted to proceed to full hearing.
Legal Topics
Equal Value Claims, Material Factor Defence, Disclosure Orders, Case Management, Sex Discrimination, Burden of Proof
Employment Law Equal Pay Equal Value Claims Material Factor Defence Disclosure Orders Case Management Sex Discrimination Burden of Proof

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tesco Stores Ltd

Appellant

Ms K Element & Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Employment Appeal Tribunal (eat) Appeal / Combined Full Hearing (grounds 1 and 2) and Preliminary Hearing (grounds 3 and 4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the tribunal erred in making standard and issues-based disclosure orders (orders 5 and 13.1)
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal erred in directing a hearing of material factor defence (MFD) issues before the final equal value hearing
  3. 3 Whether the tribunal erred in refusing to require claimants to plead their case on discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal's disclosure orders and case management decisions were within its discretion, proportionate, and not legally erroneous or perverse. There was no requirement for the claimants to plead discrimination in advance of Tesco's particularised MFDs. The appeal on grounds 1 and 2 is dismissed; grounds 3 and 4 are not permitted to proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on grounds 1 and 2; grounds 3 and 4 not permitted to proceed to full hearing.

Orders

  • Appeal on grounds 1 and 2 dismissed.
  • No further action on grounds 3 and 4.