Case 1401523/2018 · Employment Tribunal
1. Helen Cherry 2. Amanda Cox 3. Alison Milton v Next Retail Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1401523/2018
- Decision date
- 4 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
3 namedClaimant
1. Helen Cherry 2. Amanda Cox 3. Alison Milton
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy agreement of the parties, the first respondent (Next Retail Limited) was ordered to pay arrears to three named claimants in the equal pay litigation: £25,460.13 to Helen Cherry, £7,724.28 to Amanda Cox and £6,776.35 to Alison Milton. Each award also carries daily interest from 4 March 2025 until payment (at £5.58, £1.69 and £1.48 per day respectively).
The terms of the judgments are stayed under rule 64(b) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules until determination of any appeal. The published document is a short consent order containing no reasons; the underlying findings are not set out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | By agreement of the parties: arrears for first claimant Helen Cherry of £25,460.13 plus interest of £5.58 per day from 4 March 2025 until payment. Stayed under rule 64(b) until determination of any appeal. | Settled | — | £25,460 |
| Equal pay | By agreement of the parties: arrears for second claimant Amanda Cox of £7,724.28 plus interest of £1.69 per day from 4 March 2025 until payment. Stayed under rule 64(b) until determination of any appeal. | Settled | — | £7,724 |
| Equal pay | By agreement of the parties: arrears for third claimant Alison Milton of £6,776.35 plus interest of £1.48 per day from 4 March 2025 until payment. Stayed under rule 64(b) until determination of any appeal. | Settled | — | £6,776 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £39,961
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 64(b) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules
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.