Macarthys Ltd v Smith
A woman can claim equal pay by comparing herself with a man who previously did the same job, not merely with a man employed at the same time.
Facts
Mrs Smith was appointed as a stockroom manager by Macarthys, at a salary of 50 pounds a week. Her male predecessor in the job, who had left four months before she started, had been paid 60 pounds a week. She claimed equal pay, comparing herself with her predecessor. The Court of Appeal considered that the Equal Pay Act 1970 required the comparison to be with a man employed at the same time, but referred the question whether article 119 of the EEC Treaty allowed a comparison with a predecessor to the Court of Justice.
Legal principle
The Court of Justice held that the principle of equal pay for equal work in article 119 was not confined to situations in which men and women are contemporaneously doing equal work for the same employer, and that a woman could compare herself with a man who had previously done the same work. The Court of Appeal then held that Mrs Smith was entitled to succeed, because article 119 had direct effect and took priority over the Equal Pay Act. Lord Denning MR said that, if there was a conflict between European law and the domestic statute, European law must prevail. Section 64 of the Equality Act 2010 now allows comparison with a predecessor.
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
- Birmingham City Council v Abdulla [2012] UKSC 47, [2013] 1 AC 504
- 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
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.
