Case 2307642/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Hamid v Kent County Council, — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307642/2023
- Decision date
- 1 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
- Panel members
- Dr S Chacko, Mr W Dixon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Hamid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, sitting as Employment Judge Corrigan with Dr S Chacko and Mr W Dixon, considered Ms Hamid's equal pay (like work) claim against Kent County Council in respect of two named male comparators, Mr G (a former police officer) and Mr W (an agency worker). The claim proceeded on a like work basis only.
In respect of Mr G, the tribunal found that the claimant was performing like work during the relevant comparison periods and that the respondent's material factor defences (differences in role, Mr G's prior experience as a police officer, and fulfilment of role requirements) did not justify the difference in pay. The tribunal declared that the respondent had breached a sex equality clause.
In respect of Mr W, the tribunal found that the roles were not like work because of practical differences including Mr W's agency-worker status, his independent reporting line to the Head of Service, and the leadership expectations attached to his post. It was therefore unnecessary to consider the material factor defence for that comparator. Remedy is to be determined at a further hearing unless the parties agree an award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Equal pay (like work) claim in respect of male comparator Mr G upheld for the period from 20-31 December 2017 and again from April 2021 onwards. The tribunal declared that the respondent had breached a sex equality clause. Quantum to be determined at a separate remedy hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
| Equal pay | Equal pay (like work) claim in respect of agency-worker comparator Mr W dismissed; the tribunal found the claimant was not performing like work to Mr W and the claim was not pursued on equal value grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.69 Equality Act 2010
- s.69(1)(2) Equality Act 2010
- s.69(1)(b) Equality Act 2010
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.