Birmingham City Council v Abdulla
An equal pay claim brought in the ordinary courts within the six year limitation period, after the time limit for a tribunal claim had passed, was not necessarily an abuse of process.
Facts
Female employees of Birmingham City Council, including cooks, cleaners and care workers, discovered that male employees in jobs of equal value had received substantial bonuses which they had not received. They had left the council's employment more than six months earlier, so they could not bring claims in the employment tribunal. They brought equal pay claims in the High Court, where the limitation period was six years. The council applied to strike out the claims, arguing that they could more conveniently be disposed of by the employment tribunal.
Legal principle
The Supreme Court held, by a majority, that the claims should not be struck out. Lord Wilson said that the High Court could strike out an equal pay claim under section 2(3) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 if it could more conveniently be disposed of separately by an employment tribunal, but that a claim which would be out of time in the tribunal could not more conveniently be disposed of there, because it would be dismissed without consideration of its merits. The women were entitled to bring their claims in the High Court. The decision exposed councils to many more equal pay claims.
Related cases on equal pay
- Allonby v Accrington and Rossendale College Case C-256/01, [2004] ECR I-873
- Asda Stores Ltd v Brierley [2021] UKSC 10
- Barber v Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance Group Case C-262/88, [1990] ECR I-1889
- Bilka-Kaufhaus GmbH v Weber von Hartz Case 170/84, [1986] ECR 1607
- Defrenne v Sabena (No 2) Case 43/75, [1976] ECR 455
- Enderby v Frenchay Health Authority Case C-127/92, [1993] ECR I-5535
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall [2000] 1 WLR 333
- Hayward v Cammell Laird Shipbuilders Ltd [1988] AC 894
Studying employment law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
