Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Local authoritiesEmployment lawEquality, diversity and inclusionEqual pay

Legal Q&A: What does Birmingham City Council v Abdulla mean for equal pay claims?

by Vanessa Hogan 13 Nov 2012
by Vanessa Hogan 13 Nov 2012

It has been long accepted that the courts and the employment tribunals have concurrent jurisdiction to hear claims for breach of the statutory equality clause in a contract of employment (equal pay claims). Vanessa Hogan of Hogan Lovells considers the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Birmingham City Council v Abdullah and others, in which it ruled that 170 women who worked for Birmingham City Council can proceed with equal pay claims against their former employer in the civil courts, where the six-month employment tribunal time limit for bringing a claim had expired.

Q Why is this decision so important?

This decision by the Supreme Court confirms that the door is open for claimants to bring equal pay claims up to six years after their employment has terminated.

The equal pay principle is achieved by implying a “sex equality” clause into a woman’s contract of employment, thus ensuring that she receives equal pay for equal work. While the relevant legislation provides that an equal pay claim can be brought in the civil court as a breach of contract claim or in the employment tribunal, in practice the civil court has power to “pass” the claim to the employment tribunal to determine, if this is seen as the more “convenient” forum to hear the claim. The question that the Supreme Court faced was whether or not the High Court should strike out claims on the basis that the employment tribunal was the proper forum in circumstances where the claims would be out of time in the employment tribunal and therefore would be unable to proceed. The Supreme Court found that even where an equal pay claim would be out of time in the employment tribunal, it can still be brought in the civil courts.

This means that employers will no longer be “safe” from an equal pay claim after six months, but instead could be clock-watching for a further five and a half years, and ex-employees who may not have realised that they had been underpaid could get the opportunity to seek redress through the civil courts.

Q Are there any added risks in bringing an equal pay claim in the civil court instead of the employment tribunal?

There are significant cost risks in bringing a claim in the civil courts. Unlike in the employment tribunal where costs are awarded only in exceptional cases, in the civil courts, orders for the losing party to pay at least part of the winner’s costs are the norm. This will clearly be of concern to the individual litigant who will not only have to fund the case as it progresses in the civil court, but may also be stuck with a large costs bill for the other side’s costs at the end. That said, in practice it is relatively common to see equal pay claims backed by trade unions that will have deeper coffers to dip into in order to fund the claim.

Q Should employers be taking any immediate action as a result of this decision?

Employers that have had successful equal pay claims brought against them in the employment tribunal in the previous six years might want to think about reviewing their historic workforce to assess whether or not new claims could be brought by ex-employees who were not involved in the original employment tribunal claim. There are no specific actions that employers can take to mitigate such risks, but at least they will have the potential claims (and cost of dealing with them) on their radar.

Q The decision involves a public-sector employer – does this decision have the same implications for private-sector employers?

Private-sector employers are under the same equal pay obligations as the public sector. However, equal pay claims have historically been more prevalent in the public sector, where trade unions have been particularly active in the fight for equality. Therefore, while the Supreme Court’s decision has the same implications for private-sector employers as it does for public-sector employers, the risks of a claim probably still remain relatively low.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Vanessa Hogan is a senior associate in the employment department of Hogan Lovells








FAQs from XpertHR



  • How can an employer defend an equal pay claim?
  • Can a woman use her predecessor or successor as the comparator in an equal pay claim?
  • Is an employer acting unlawfully if pay rates vary between employees who perform similar roles?

Vanessa Hogan

previous post
Poor talent pipelines hampering growth
next post
Business groups welcome Clegg’s ‘flexible parental leave’ proposals

You may also like

Fewer workers would comply with a return-to-office mandate

21 May 2025

Redefining leadership: From competence to inclusion

21 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Minister defends Employment Rights Bill at Acas conference

16 May 2025

CBI chair Soames accuses ministers of not listening...

16 May 2025

Union rep teacher awarded £370k for unfair dismissal

15 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Culture, ‘micro-incivilities’ and invisible talent

14 May 2025

Contract cleaner loses EAT race discrimination appeal

14 May 2025

Why fighting the DEI backlash is about PR...

9 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+