The defendant applied for an order declaring that the claim would better be brought in an employment tribunal and that accordingly the County court should decline jurisdiction.
Held: The application was dismissed: ‘ I reject the submission by the Defendant that convenience must be judged in some abstract way by reference to whether a case with the characteristics of that being considered by the Court would be more conveniently dealt with by an Employment Tribunal. On the true construction of Section 2(3), it cannot be more convenient for a claim to be disposed of separately by an Employment Tribunal in circumstances where the Employment Tribunal could not determine the claim on its merits but would be bound to refuse jurisdiction to deal with the claim because it was time barred. In those circumstances, whether or not the claim made by these Claimants will or will not prove to be a complex one is not a relevant consideration.’
Judges:
Colin Edelman QC
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 3303 (QB), [2011] IRLR 309
Links:
Statutes:
Equal Pay Act 1970 2(3), Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998 1(2)(a), Industrial Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Sorbie v Trust House Forte Hotels EAT 1976
Phillips J considered an alteration to the terms of an employment contract, saying: ‘One then goes on to see what the effect as prescribed is, and it is that that term, so identified, in the appellants’ contracts shall be treated, as so modified, as . .
Cited – Levez etc v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No 2) EAT 1-Oct-1999
The restriction on the awards of compensation for sex discrimination to payments in respect of a period of two years prior to the claim was unlawful. Claims of other natures were not so limited, and this could not be supported, since it was in . .
Cited – EA Gutridge and Others v Sodexo and Another CA 14-Jul-2009
The employees appealed against dismissal of their equal pay claims. They said that having been transferred under a TUPE arrangement, and now having to claim against the new employer, they argued that the six months time limit started from the time . .
Cited – McAvoy and Others v Llewellyn and Others; Hartlepool Borough Council v Llewellyn and Others EAT 24-Jun-2009
EAT EQUAL PAY ACT – Material factor defence
Male colleagues of female equal pay claimants may bring ‘piggyback’ contingent claims using the female claimants as comparators and may recover sums equivalent to . .
Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
Cited – Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) ECJ 8-Apr-1976
ECJ The principle that men and women should receive equal pay, which is laid down by article 119, is one of the foundations of the community. It may be relied on before the national courts. These courts have a . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others CA 29-Nov-2011
The Council appealed against an order dismissing its application for the claimants’ claims under equal pay legislation to be struck out for want of jurisdiction. The claims had been brought in the High Court rather than te hEmployment Tribunal, thus . .
At first instance – Birmingham City Council v Abdulla and Others SC 24-Oct-2012
Former employees wished to argue that they had been discriminated against whilst employed by the Council. Being out of time for Employment Tribunal Proceedings, they sought to bring their cases in the ordinary courts. The Council now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Employment, Discrimination
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428324