Case 1302019/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Thandi and others v Next Retail Limited 2.Next Distribution Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302019/2018
- Decision date
- 8 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Leeds
- Panel members
- Mr W Roberts, Ms G M Fleming
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Thandi and others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimants, mostly women working in Next retail stores, alleged that men working in warehouses were doing work of equal value but were paid more. The judgment concerned the Stage 2 task of deciding disputed factual content in job descriptions for selected lead claimants and comparators before independent experts assessed equal value.
The Tribunal made findings on contested descriptions of retail and warehouse work, including targets, deadlines, bonus-related standards, flexibility, task frequency, working knowledge of stock, and particular physical or environmental demands. It directed specific deletions and additions to the agreed job descriptions so that the experts could evaluate the work on the corrected factual basis.
The judgment did not determine whether the work was of equal value, whether any sex equality clause modified contractual terms, or whether any claimant was entitled to compensation. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Stage 2 judgment determining disputed factual content of lead claimant and comparator job descriptions for later equal value evaluation; it does not finally decide liability or remedy. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.65(6) Equality Act 2010
- Beal v Avery Homes (Nelson) Ltd [2019] EWHC 1415 (QB)
- balance of probabilities
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.
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.