Case 4103706/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Tribunal Member E Farrell Tribunal Member S Singh Ms Lynne Edgar v Represented by:15 Mr Ronald Clarke - Solicitor Scottish Water — 2023
- Case reference
- 4103706/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ian McPherson
- Panel members
- E Farrell, S Singh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Tribunal Member E Farrell Tribunal Member S Singh Ms Lynne Edgar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs Lynne Edgar, a Corporate Affairs Officer employed by Scottish Water, brought an equal pay claim comparing herself with Matthew Bingham, the only male Corporate Affairs Officer. This hearing was a preliminary hearing on the respondent's material factor defence under s.69 Equality Act 2010. The tribunal did not determine whether the claimant and comparator were doing like work or work of equal value under s.65 Equality Act 2010.
The respondent relied on market factors, skills-related or other relevant supplements, experience, responsibility and potential, and cost. During the hearing it withdrew the market forces defence. The tribunal accepted that Scottish Water operated banded pay ranges and that Mr Bingham was moved from consideration for a Band B Corporate Affairs Specialist role to a Band C Corporate Affairs Officer role, starting on £36,500. However, it found there was no clear and cogent evidence identifying who made the salary decision, when it was made, or what factors were actually taken into account, and there was no transparent audit trail or evidence from Mr Alan Thomson, who was said to have approved the figure.
Applying the burden of proof and equal pay authorities it cited, including s.136 Equality Act 2010, Glasgow City Council v Marshall, Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board, and Walker v Co-operative Group Limited, the tribunal held that the respondent had not established its pleaded material factor defences. It also refused the respondent's Rule 50 application for privacy or anonymity, including the proposed anonymity of Mr Bingham and the redaction of material about his CV, interview and pay. The case was listed for a final hearing to decide whether the claimant and comparator were doing like work.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Preliminary hearing only. The tribunal rejected the respondent's s.69 Equality Act 2010 material factor defences, but did not determine the underlying like-work issue under s.65 or award any remedy; the claim and response were listed for a further final hearing. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- s.69 Equality Act 2010 material factor defence
- s.136 Equality Act 2010 burden of proof
- Glasgow City Council v Marshall
- Rainey v Greater Glasgow Health Board
- Walker v Co-operative Group Limited
- Rule 50 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- A v Burke and Hare
- Fallows v News Group Newspapers Limited
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.