Visit JCPCUKSC/2026/0147
•
EMPLOYMENT
McMahon (Respondent) v AXA ICAS Ltd (now named AXA Health Services Ltd) (Appellant)
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2026/0147
Parties
Appellant(s)
AXA Health Services Limited
Respondent(s)
Carol McMahon
Issue
Can health insurance entitlements under a contract of employment constitute wages for the purposes of an unpaid wages claim brought after dismissal?
Facts
The respondent, Ms McMahon, was dismissed in 2013. She brought a claim against the appellant, AXA, for, inter alia, unpaid wages under section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (“ERA 1996”). In March 2022, Ms McMahon applied for permission to amend her s.13 wage claim to cover Permanent Health Insurance (“PHI”) entitlements that she said were due following her dismissal. The application was advanced on the basis that her dismissal had been “negated” as it was a breach of an implied term that she would not be dismissed whilst eligible for payment under a PHI or similar scheme. The Employment Tribunal (“ET”) did not allow the amendment and on appeal nor did the Employment Appeal Tribunal (“EAT”). However, the EAT granted permission to appeal as it raised a “novel issue”. The Extra Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session (“the CS”), upholding Ms McMahon’s appeal, determined that PHI payments could amount to wages within the meaning of s.13 ERA 1996 and remitting the matter to the ET. AXA now seeks permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Date of issue
6 October 2026
Case origin
PTA
