- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Abdulla v Birmingham City Council [2013] 1 All ER 649
Citation: [2012] UKSC 47
Court: Supreme Court
Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
Date: 11 July, 24 October 2012
Facts:
The primary consideration under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 is the practical convenience of the forum for investigating the merits of an equal pay claim. A claim that is time-barred in the Employment Tribunal cannot be considered "more conveniently disposed of" there.
Impact/Significance:
Citation: [2012] UKSC 47
Court: Supreme Court
Judges: Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath
Date: 11 July, 24 October 2012
Facts:
- Claimants, mostly women, formerly employed by Birmingham City Council.
- Brought an equal pay claim in the High Court, alleging breach of contract due to non-compliance with contractual obligations as modified by the equality clause implied by the Equal Pay Act 1970.
- Claims were within the High Court's time limit but out of time for the Employment Tribunal.
- Birmingham City Council sought a declaration under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970, arguing the High Court lacked jurisdiction or should not exercise it, contending the limitation issue in the tribunal was irrelevant.
- The Council further argued that the reasons for claimants' failure to present timely complaints to the tribunal should be considered.
- Whether a claim regarding an equality clause can be "more conveniently disposed of" by an Employment Tribunal under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 if it is time-barred in the tribunal.
- Whether the reasons for not bringing a timely claim before the tribunal are a relevant consideration.
- Equal Pay Act 1970, s 2(3): Allows a court to strike out a claim regarding an equality clause if it can "more conveniently be disposed of separately by an employment tribunal" and refer the proceedings to the tribunal.
- (Lord Sumption and Lord Carnwath dissenting) A claim cannot be "more conveniently disposed of" by the Employment Tribunal if it is time-barred there.
- The reasons for the claimant's failure to present a timely claim to the tribunal are irrelevant to the notion of convenience under s 2(3).
- The court emphasized that "conveniently" mandates a practical inquiry into the most suitable forum for investigating the merits, regardless of limitation periods.
- However, the court retains the inherent jurisdiction to strike out a claim if it constitutes an abuse of process (e.g., deliberately avoiding the tribunal to gain an illegitimate advantage).
- The court retains the power under s 2(3) to refer a question as to the operation of an equality clause to the tribunal, even if a claim would be time-barred.
- A claimant's unreasonable failure to present a timely claim to the tribunal may be relevant to costs.
The primary consideration under s 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 is the practical convenience of the forum for investigating the merits of an equal pay claim. A claim that is time-barred in the Employment Tribunal cannot be considered "more conveniently disposed of" there.
Impact/Significance:
- Confirms that the High Court retains jurisdiction over equal pay claims even if they could have been brought in the Employment Tribunal but are now time-barred there.
- Prevents employers from using s 2(3) to effectively shorten the limitation period allowed for claims in court.
- Highlights the importance of considering the practical convenience of the forum for investigating the merits of the case.
- Ashby v Birmingham City Council [2011] 4 All ER 182
- Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd, The Spiliada [1986] 3 All ER 843
- Parliament may wish to consider relaxing limitation periods for the Employment Tribunal in cases where an equal pay claim is brought in time before the court but could be more conveniently disposed of by the tribunal, were it not for the usual limitation period.
0 Comments