Law reports

All items: Effect of EC law

  • expand

    Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [1999] IRLR 148 EAT (3 reports relating to this case)

    • Claim by ex-council staff rejected

      Date:
      1 June 1999

      In Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others the EAT has ruled that in order to bring an equal pay claim, the applicant and comparator must be in the same establishment or service.

    • Equal pay: No comparison permitted between former council staff and existing employees

      Date:
      15 March 1999

      An employment tribunal had correctly concluded that former council employees working for a contractor providing contracted-out services could not compare themselves with existing council staff doing work that had previously been found to be of equal value to their own, holds the EAT in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care and others. While Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome does not limit permissible comparisons to those employed by the same employer, the applicant and comparator in an equal pay claim must nevertheless "in a loose and non-technical sense be in the same establishment or service". There was nothing about the present case "which would distinguish it from any other case where an applicant claimed equal pay with a comparator employed by another company, not necessarily even engaged in the same industry".

    • Limit to equal pay comparison

      Date:
      1 March 1999

      In Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others (5 November 1998) EOR84C, the EAT holds that former employees of a county council, who are now employed by private contractors, are not entitled to bring an equal pay claim relying on Article 119 of the EC Treaty comparing themselves with current employees of the council whose work had been rated as equivalent to their own.

  • expand

    Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [2000] IRLR 608 CA (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Comparator issue to ECJ

      Date:
      1 March 2001

      The Court of Appeal in Lawrence v Regent Office Care has referred to the European Court of Justice questions as to whether employees who are now employed by private contractors, including former employees of a county council, are entitled to bring an equal pay claim relying on Article 141 of the EC Treaty to compare themselves with current employees of the council whose work had been rated as of equal value to their own.

    • Equal pay: Can workers transferred on contracting out compare their pay with that of retained workers?

      Date:
      15 July 2000

      In Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others, the Court of Appeal refers to the European Court of Justice the question of whether or not female workers employed by contractors in the provision of services contracted out by a council can compare their pay with that of male workers in the council's employment whose work is of equal value to theirs.

  • expand

    Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others [2002] IRLR 822 ECJ (7 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay: case law update

      Date:
      2 March 2007

      This article looks at some of the significant judgments in the area of equal pay over the past year and their implications.

    • Equal pay: case law update

      Date:
      3 February 2006

      We review recent significant equal pay cases and their implications. Developments of note include the application of the "single source" test to comparators within an employment unit, and a reference to the ECJ on whether use of length of service as a pay system criterion requires specific objective justification.

    • Equal value update

      Date:
      1 May 2003

      Kate Godwin charts the recent developments on equal pay and reports on key equal value cases.

    • Equal pay: Transferred workers cannot compare their pay with retained workers

      Date:
      10 January 2003

      Article 141 of the EC Treaty of Rome is not limited to situations where men and women work for the same employer, but it does not cover the situation where pay differences between equal pay claimants and their comparators cannot be attributed to a single source, so that there is no single body responsible for the inequality and which can restore equal treatment, the European Court of Justice holds in Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others.

    • EC: ECJ case law round-up

      Date:
      1 January 2003

      In our latest round-up of decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), we look at cases on equal pay, the principle of equal treatment as related to working conditions, the meaning of a transfer for the purposes of the business transfers Directive and, finally, guarantee payments to employees following the insolvency of their employers.

    • Case round-up: equal pay claims

      Date:
      29 October 2002

      This week's case round-up looks at equal pay claims.

    • Cross-employer comparison rejected

      Date:
      1 October 2002

      In Lawrence and others v Regent Office Care Ltd and others (17 September 2002), the European Court of Justice has ruled that former employees of a county council, who are now employed by private contractors, are not entitled to bring an equal pay claim relying on Article 141 of the EC Treaty comparing themselves with current employees of the council whose work had been rated as equivalent to their own.

  • expand

    Leverton v Clwyd County Council [1988] IRLR 239 CA (1 report relating to this case)

    • Comparator must have broadly similar terms for cross-establishment equal value claim

      Date:
      1 July 1988

      In Leverton v Clwyd County Council (17.3.88) EOR20C, the Court of Appeal holds that a complainant and her comparators in different establishments must be employed on "broadly similar" terms and conditions in order for "common terms and conditions" to be observed between the establishments so as to permit an equal value comparison.

  • expand

    Leverton v Clwyd County Council [1989] IRLR 28 HL (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Criteria for cross-establishment equal pay claim

      Date:
      1 March 1989

      In Leverton v Clwyd County Council (15.12.88) EOR24C, the House of Lords rules that whether there are "common terms and conditions" observed between two establishments so as to enable an equal pay comparison to be made requires a "broad" comparison between the terms observed at the two establishments, applicable either to all the employees or employees of the class to which the complainant and her comparator belong.

    • Equal pay: Cross-establishment equal pay claims

      Date:
      24 January 1989

      A woman can claim equal pay with a man working in a different establishment even if her own terms and conditions of employment are not "broadly similar" to his, provided that common terms and conditions are observed at their establishments, either generally or for employees of their respective classes.

  • expand

    Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No.2) [1999] IRLR 764 EAT (3 reports relating to this case)

    • EAT sets aside back pay limit

      Date:
      1 December 1999

      In Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No.2); Hicking v Basford Group Ltd (in receivership) the EAT has ruled that the two-year limit on back pay in s. 2(5) of the Equal Pay Act contravenes Article 119 (now Article 141) of the EC Treaty and is thus unenforceable.

    • Equal pay: Equal pay compensation can be backdated for six years

      Date:
      15 November 1999

      The two-year limitation on backdated compensation contained in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act is a restriction on an applicant's right to have a full and effective remedy for breach of the European Community equal pay principle, holds the EAT in Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No.2) and Hicking v Basford Group Ltd (in receivership).

    • Equal Pay Act limit set aside

      Date:
      1 November 1999

      In Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (No.2) and Hicking v Basford Group Ltd (in receivership) EOR88C, the EAT holds that the two-year limit on back pay in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 contravenes Article 119 of the EC Treaty and must be set aside. Successful equal pay complainants can claim back pay for up to six years from the date proceedings were commenced.

  • expand

    Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd [1996] IRLR 499 EAT (4 reports relating to this case)

    • Firms likely to face claims for sizeable back payments

      Date:
      21 January 2003

      Government consultation setting a six-year limit for equal pay compensation does not go far enough and is likely to be challenged by the European Court of Justice.

    • In court 1999

      Date:
      1 January 2000

      Our 10th annual round-up of court and tribunal cases concerning pensions and retirement issues encompasses 38 judgments. Last year saw some important decisions, but fewer cases overall than in recent years.

    • Equal pay: Legality of backdated compensation limit referred to European Court of Justice

      Date:
      1 September 1996

      In Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd, the EAT decides, by a majority, to refer a question to the European Court of Justice on whether the provision in the Equal Pay Act 1970 which permits an award of arrears of remuneration or damages only in respect of the two-year period prior to the issue of the claim is contrary to Community law.

    • Equal pay damages limit referred to ECJ

      Date:
      1 September 1996

      In Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (24 June 1996) EOR69D, the EAT asks the European Court of Justice whether the two-year retrospective limit on damages under the Equal Pay Act accords with European Community law.

  • expand

    Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd [1999] IRLR 36 ECJ (3 reports relating to this case)

    • Firms likely to face claims for sizeable back payments

      Date:
      21 January 2003

      Government consultation setting a six-year limit for equal pay compensation does not go far enough and is likely to be challenged by the European Court of Justice.

    • Equal pay: Two-year limit on backdated compensation disapplied

      Date:
      1 January 1999

      European Community law precludes the application of the Equal Pay Act's limitation on an employee's entitlement to arrears of remuneration or damages to the two-year period prior to the date on which the proceedings are instituted, there being no possibility of extending that period, where the delay in bringing a claim is attributable to the fact that the employer deliberately misrepresented to the employee the level of remuneration received by persons of the opposite sex performing like work, rules the European Court of Justice in Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd.

    • Equal pay limit threatened

      Date:
      1 January 1999

      In Levez v TH Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd (1 December 1998) EOR83C, the European Court of Justice casts doubt on the lawfulness of the two-year limit on arrears of remuneration in s.2(5) of the Equal Pay Act 1970

  • expand

    Lewen v Denda [2000] IRLR 67 ECJ (2 reports relating to this case)

    • Equal pay: Refusing to pay Christmas bonus to women on parental leave may not be discriminatory

      Date:
      15 January 2000

      In Lewen v Denda, the European Court of Justice rules that, where a bonus that is paid voluntarily as an exceptional allowance at Christmas is awarded retroactively as pay for work done, an employer is precluded by Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome from excluding female workers on parental leave entirely from the benefit of the bonus, without taking account of the work done. But an employer may lawfully refuse to pay such a bonus to a woman on parental leave where that payment is subject only to her being in active employment.

    • Bonus paid during parental leave

      Date:
      1 December 1999

      In Lewen v Denda the European Court of Justice has ruled that whether an employee on parental leave is entitled under Article 119 of the EC Treaty (now Article 141) to a Christmas bonus depends on whether it is properly seen as pay for work performed or whether it is to encourage those in active employment to work hard in forthcoming months.

  • expand

    Lommers v Minister Van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij [2002] IRLR 430 ECJ (4 reports relating to this case)

    • EC: ECJ case law round-up

      Date:
      1 January 2003

      In our latest round-up of decisions from the European Court of Justice (ECJ), we look at cases on equal pay, the principle of equal treatment as related to working conditions, the meaning of a transfer for the purposes of the business transfers Directive and, finally, guarantee payments to employees following the insolvency of their employers.

    • Case roundup: unfair dismissal and positive discrimination

      Date:
      18 June 2002

      This week's case roundup from Eversheds, covering unfair dismissal and positive discrimination.

    • Sex discrimination: Providing nursery places to female employees only did not breach Equal Treatment Directive

      Date:
      15 June 2002

      In Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visseij, the European Court of Justice rules that a policy under which an employer provided female employees only with access to nursery places for their children at work, while denying male employees with children the same facility save in cases of emergency, did not breach the Equal Treatment Directive.

    • ECJ endorses positive discrimination

      Date:
      1 May 2002

      In Lommers v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (19 March 2002), the European Court of Justice upholds a policy in a Dutch civil service department which offers subsidised childcare places only to female employees. The ECJ says that the scheme does not contravene EU law so long as it is also available on the same conditions to men who are single parents.

About this category

Precedent-setting cases from the EAT and appellate courts, along with reports of selected tribunal cases, relating to equal pay: effect of EC law.