Case 4104559/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Devanny v Represented by: ` Mr D Fairley QC The Scottish Ministers — 2019
- Case reference
- 4104559/2018
- Decision date
- 28 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge S MacLean
- Venue
- Glasgow
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Devanny
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in which Mrs A Devanny, President and later Chamber President of the Housing and Property jurisdiction, compared her work with that of Dr Morrow, President of the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, for the purposes of section 65 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal set out the two-stage test for like work: first, whether the work was the same or broadly similar; and second, whether any differences were of practical importance in relation to the terms of employment.
The tribunal held that, in general terms, the claimant’s work and Dr Morrow’s work were broadly similar. It found that both were tribunal presidents responsible for the efficient running of their tribunals, issuing directions, managing members, providing training and guidance, handling capability issues, preparing annual reports, and chairing and determining cases. The tribunal also rejected the respondents’ reliance on the SSRB report as determinative, noting that it was not a job evaluation exercise and did not decide where the two posts should sit within the five pay points within salary group V.
However, at the second stage the tribunal found material differences of practical importance. It accepted that the MHTS dealt with very different subject matter, including compulsory measures, restricted patient and CORO cases, and that all MHTS cases involved vulnerable people and the balance between private and public interests. It found that Dr Morrow spent a significant amount of time on restricted patient work and complex hearings, whereas the claimant did not as a matter of course hear complex or lengthy cases within the Housing and Property jurisdiction and had no cases she was required to hear because of her appointment. The tribunal also considered the greater responsibility attached to the MHTS role before December 2017.
For those reasons, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not undertaking and had not undertaken like work as Dr Morrow within section 65(1)(a) of the Equality Act 2010. The claim therefore failed at the liability stage and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Preliminary issue under section 65 Equality Act 2010: the tribunal held the claimant was not undertaking and had not undertaken like work as her comparator, Dr Morrow. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
12 references- section 65(1)(a) Equality Act 2010
- section 65(2) Equality Act 2010
- section 65(3) Equality Act 2010
- Waddington v Leicester Council for Voluntary Services
- Capper Pass Limited v Lawton
- Dance v Dorothy Perkins Limited
- Sita UK Limited v Hope
- Morgan v Middlesborough Council
- Redland Roof Tiles Limited v Harper
- Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Limited
- British Leyland (UK) Limited v Powell
- Eaton Limited v Nuttall
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.