Brett and Others v Hampshire County Council: EAT 25 Jan 2010

EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS: 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
Four points arising out of the application of section 32 of the Employment Act 2002 in a series of related equal pay multiples.
(1) In a case involving the modified grievance procedure, where the Claimant in her grievance had identified four jobs but had in her eventual claim identified two of those jobs but also two which were different, she was entitled to pursue her claim in so far as it relied on comparison with the former but not the latter: each individual comparison gives rise to a distinct claim. Cannop v Highland Council [2008] IRLR 634 referred to.
(2) A Claimant cannot rely on a ‘collective grievance’ under reg. 9 of the Employment Act 2002 (Dispute Resolution) Regulations 2004 if the statement relied on raises a grievance in relation to a different job from that which she was in fact doing. But a mistake of this kind can be corrected prior to the issue of proceedings.
(3) It was sufficiently apparent that male claimants identified in a collective grievance statement were advancing ‘piggyback’ claims, even though that was not spelt out in the statement itself.
(4) A grievance that had been withdrawn could only be reinstated in writing.
Underhill P J
[2010] UKEAT 0500 – 08 – 2501
Cited by:
DistinguishedSefton Metropolitan Borough Council and Another v Hincks and Others EAT 14-Jul-2011
EAT JURISDICTIONAL POINTS – 2002 Act and pre-action requirements
EQUAL PAY ACT – Case Management
Equal pay claimants in their original grievances named a . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 22 February 2021; Ref: scu.402638