Scottish Water v Lynne Edgar
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lord Fairley |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 06 March 2024 |
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Scottish Water v Edgar
Page 1 EA-2023-SCO-000023-JP
© EAT 2024
Neutral Citation Number: [2024] EAT 32
Case No: EA-2023-SCO-000023-JP
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
52 Melville Street
Edinburgh EH3 7HF
Date: 06 March 2024
Before :
THE HONOURABLE LORD FAIRLEY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between :
SCOTTISH WATER Appellant
- and -
LYNNE EDGAR Respondent
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr Michael McLaughlin (Shoosmiths LLP) for the Appellant
Mr Ronald Clarke (Thompsons Solicitors) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 20 February 2024
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
Judgment approved by the court for handing down Scottish Water v Edgar
Page 2 EA-2023-SCO-000023-JP
© EAT 2024
SUMMARY
EQUAL PAY; material factor defence
The claimant brought an equal pay claim under the Equality Act, 2010. Her comparator was a male
employee with the same job title and within the same pay band who had been appointed after her.
The appellant raised a material factor defence that the difference in pay was due to the comparator’s
superior skills, experience and potential. The appellant led evidence about discussions within its
organisation about those matters and about the resultant level of salary ultimately offered to the
comparator at the time of his appointment. It also sought to lead comparative evidence of the
claimant’s skills, experience and potential both at the time of and after his appointment. The
Employment Tribunal directed itself that the appellant required to prove the identity of the pay
decision-maker at the point in time when the comparator was engaged. It concluded that the appellant
had not done so, and that the material factor defence accordingly failed. It also directed itself that
comparative evidence of the respective skills, experience and potential of the claimant and the
comparator in a period of time after the comparator’s appointment was irrelevant.
Held: (1) The Tribunal’s self-direction that the appellant needed to prove the identity of the decision-
maker was a material misdirection of law, as was its conclusion that an absence of proof of the identity
of the decision maker inevitably led to a failure to prove the material factor defence; and
(2) The Tribunal further erred in determining that comparative evidence of the respective skills and
abilities of the claimant and the comparator from a period in time after the comparator’s appointment
was irrelevant.
The Tribunal’s Judgment was set aside and the preliminary issue was remitted to a diff erently
constituted Tribunal.
Observed: The primary purpose of the reasons section of any decision of an Employment Tribunal
should be to explain to the parties clearly and concisely why the Tribunal reached its decision.
To continue reading
Request your trial