header-logo header-logo

10 January 2014
Issue: 7589 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Employment—Equal pay

Wallace and another v Calmac Ferries Ltd UKEATS/0014/13/BI, [2013] All ER (D) 242 (Dec)

The proceedings concerned the first case relating to the equal terms and conditions, in particular in respect of pay, under the Equality Act 2010. The Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the starting point was for the employer to show that the difference between the man’s pay and the woman’s pay was because of a material factor. It was clear from the terms of s 69(2) of the Act that the burden of proof, which was the subject matter of the Nelson decision, was clearly set out in that sub-section. Where a pay disparity arose for examination, it was not sufficient for an employer to show why one party was paid as one party was. The statute required an explanation for the difference, which inevitably involved considering why the claimants were paid as they were, on the one hand, and separately, why the comparator was paid as he was. Discrimination claims in particular should not be struck out where they involved a core disputed fact.

 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll