Equal pay cases to rise as appeal judges allow claims to be brought in High Court

A major avenue of equal pay litigation potentially opened up today after the Court of Appeal ruled that former female employees of Birmingham City Council could bring breach of contract claims in the High Court.

The local authority had sought to overturn a ruling by Mr Colin Edelman QC in December 2010 which allowed the claims to go ahead.

Birmingham argued that the civil courts lacked jurisdiction and so the claims should be struck out. The council insisted that any claims should be dealt with by the Employment Tribunal instead.

It is understood that Birmingham is now looking to take the case to the Supreme Court.

At the heart of the case are the different time limits that apply to bringing claims. The time limit at an Employment Tribunal for bringing an equal pay claim is six months, while in the civil courts it is six years after leaving employment or change of contract within employment.

The upshot of the Court of Appeal ruling is that equal pay claims can be heard in the High Court as well as at an Employment Tribunal. Law firm Leigh Day, which has been advising the claimants, said this was the first time that this had been possible since the introduction of the Equal Pay Act 1970.

It means that many potential claimants who thought that their equal pay claims were outside the limitation period, may now be able to press ahead with their cases.

The claimants in the Birmingham case were 174 women who worked as cleaners, cooks, catering staff and care staff. They are seeking to recover compensation for bonuses that they were excluded from but which were paid to employees in traditionally male dominated jobs such as refuse collectors, street cleaners, road workers and gravediggers.

The claimants missed out when Birmingham paid out compensation to former female employees in 2007 and 2008. The only workers deemed eligible at the time were those still in a job or who had recently left.

Leigh Day & Co partner Chris Benson said: “Every judge that has considered this case in both the High Court and Court of Appeal has expressed the view quite clearly that these claims on behalf of our clients would be successful and Birmingham City Council would lose. Birmingham City Council are trying through legal technicalities to avoid paying what they owe to our clients and in doing so are continuing to waste taxpayers’ money, ramping up the legal costs unnecessarily by fighting a hopeless battle.

“The fees the council are spending on litigation could be used to contribute to a settlement that would see women paid the money they are owed after years of unlawful underpayment. It is disappointing for our clients and no doubt of concern to the taxpayers of Birmingham that they have decided to appeal again to the Supreme Court and we would urge them to reconsider.”

Benson predicted that the decision could lead to many other claims coming forward “as for decades, male council workers could earn thousands on top of their salaries in bonuses, despite being on the same pay grade as their female colleagues”.

He said that in some councils these inequalities had only recently been phased out and in other cases the inequalities still existed.

A Birmingham City Council spokesman said: "We are disappointed by the judgement and are currently considering our next step, which could include an appeal."

Philip Hoult