Case 1302006/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Graham (counsel) For the v Mr M Welsh (HR Director) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1302006/2019
- Decision date
- 29 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Perry
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Graham (counsel) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 29 September 2020 before Employment Judge Perry sitting alone, heard remotely by CVP. The tribunal was asked to determine only the respondent’s material factor defence to the claimant’s equal pay complaint. The parties accepted that the defence depended on the comparator role not being equivalent and on any pay difference arising from the comparator’s previous pay, but those equivalence issues were not before the tribunal at this hearing.
The judgment records that it was agreed the respondent’s material factor defence failed and was dismissed. The claimant’s complaints were therefore allowed to proceed to a final merits hearing. The tribunal noted that a stage 1 equal pay hearing remained listed for 15 October 2020 and that the final merits hearing was listed for 10 days from 29 March 2021. It also directed the parties to identify and attempt to agree any outstanding case management matters and expert questions before the October hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | This preliminary hearing determined only the respondent’s material factor defence to the claimant’s equal pay complaint. The parties agreed that the defence failed and was dismissed, but the underlying equal pay complaint was not finally decided and was listed to proceed to a final merits hearing. | Other | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.