Tesco Stores Limited (Appellant) v Ms K Element and others (Respondents)

Permission to Appeal application lodged

Case summary
Permission to Appeal
Previous proceedings

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2026/0094

Parties

Appellant(s)

Tesco Stores Limited

Respondent(s)

K Element and others

K Aish and others

Issue

(1) What is the meaning of “work” in equal value claims made under the Equality Act 2010? (2) Can an employment tribunal incorporate training documents instead of resolving disputes of fact under the Employment Tribunals (Equal Value) Rules of Procedure?

Facts

This appeal arises out of a multi-party equal pay claim against Tesco which commenced in 2018. There are around 60,000 claimants, approximately 34,000 of whom form the current multiple from which the sample claimants were drawn. The value of the litigation is estimated by the claimants in the billions of pounds. The claimants are mainly female store-based hourly paid Tesco employees who are seeking pay parity with their better paid, mainly male colleagues who are operatives based in Tesco’s distribution centres on the basis of their work being of equal value to that of their male colleagues. The claimants assert that their work is “equal” to that of comparators primarily on the basis that it is of equal value within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010 (“EA 2010”) subsections 65(1) and 65(6). This appeal raises the question of whether, for the purposes of equal value claims under the EA 2010, “work” should be assessed by reference to what individuals actually do, or at a generic, role-based level. In other words, is the work of someone working in a shop of equal value to that of someone working in a warehouse? The Employment Tribunals (Equal Value) Rules of Procedure (“EV Rules”) establish a process for determining whether the work of claimants and comparators was of “equal value”. Stage 2 of that process involves identifying the work-related facts which will form the basis of subsequent expert and employment tribunal (“ET”) evaluation. The second issue is whether it is permissible, for the purposes of stage 2 of the EV Rules, for an ET to rely on training documents rather than determining the disputed facts. The claims have been split into three tranches. This appeal relates to a stage 2 equal value hearing that took place in the Tranche 1 claims in respect of three job roles. The stage 2 equal value hearing took place before the ET on numerous dates in March to July 2023. On 12 July 2023, the ET determined it could not determine the facts relating to the question of equal value (the “First Judgment”). On 26 July 2023, the ET made a case management order requiring the parties to produce recasts of various job tasks (the “July CMO”). On 5 July 2024, the ET determined outstanding factual issues (the “Second Judgment”). Tesco appealed the three ET orders. On 31 July 2025, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”) allowed Tesco’s appeal in part. Tesco appealed. On 12 June 2025, the Court of Appeal allowed Tesco’s appeal in part. Tesco appeals to the Supreme Court.