Case 2408966/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Wilkinson Mr G Jagger v University Hospitals Of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2408966/2020
- Decision date
- 12 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
- Venue
- Manchester
- Panel members
- Mr J Flynn, Ms C Gallagher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Wilkinson Mr G Jagger
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claimants’ direct sex discrimination claims because those claims were presented outside the statutory time limit. It further held that it was not just and equitable to extend time, so the discrimination claims did not proceed to a merits determination.
On the equal pay issue, the Tribunal found that with effect from 1 January 2020 the claimants’ contracts of employment included a sex equality clause so that their pay banding was to be no less favourable than that of the named comparators, Joanne Peters and Leanne Breslin-James. It found that the respondent breached that equality clause by remunerating the comparators at a higher rate than the claimants.
The judgment did not quantify the resulting loss. It recorded that the loss caused by the breach would be determined at a future remedy hearing if the parties did not agree it first.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the direct sex discrimination claims because they were presented outside the statutory time limit and it was not just and equitable to extend time. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Equal pay | With effect from 1 January 2020, the Tribunal found the claimants’ contracts included a sex equality clause and that the respondent breached it by paying the comparators, Joanne Peters and Leanne Breslin-James, at a higher rate. Loss was left to be quantified at a future remedy hearing if not agreed. | Upheld | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- just and equitable to extend time
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.