Equal Pay Claim Rejected; Employer Breach Found But No Financial Remedy
📌 In brief
The Employment Tribunal dismissed a worker's equal pay complaint but found that their employer had failed to provide them with a written statement of employment particulars. Despite this breach being successful, no financial compensation was awarded as it fell outside the scope of section 38 of the Employment Act 2002.
⚖️ Legal holding
An employer must provide a worker with a written statement of employment particulars as required by the Employment Rights Act 1996, but no financial remedy is available for this breach if it does not fall within specific jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002.
📖 What the law says
An employer must provide a worker with a written statement of employment particulars that includes certain details like names of the employer and worker, the start date of employment, remuneration details, working hours, holiday entitlements, notice periods, job titles, and other relevant terms and conditions. This statement must be given to the worker before the employment begins.
Plain-English explanation — does not replace advice from a solicitor.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant's equal pay complaint was dismissed, but their successful claim for a written statement of employment particulars did not entitle them to financial compensation under section 38 Employment Act 2002.
📜 Headnote Official document
The Employment Tribunal dismissed the claimant's equal pay complaint under the Equality Act 2010. However, it found that the employer breached its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars as required by section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Despite this breach being successful, no financial remedy was available under section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 because the claim did not fall within specific jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5.
📚 Full judgment Official document
OUTCOME: Other
Case No: 2402723/2024
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimant: [redacted]
HELD AT:
Liverpool ON: 27 March 2026 (reconsidered on 13 April 2026)
BEFORE:
Employment Judge Johnson
MEMBERS: [NAME] (attended by CVP)
Mrs [APPELLANT] (attended by CVP)
REPRESENTATION:
Claimant: [redacted]
First claimant (attended by CVP)
Mr [APPELLANT] (consultant, attended by CVP)
JUDGMENT
UPON APPLICATION made orally by the [APPELLANT]’s representative following the delivery of the judgment on 27 March 2026 and in accordance with Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure 2024.
The reconsidered judgment of the Tribunal is that:
(1) The complaint of inequality of pay on grounds of sex contrary to Chapter 3 of Equality Act 2010, is not well-founded and is unsuccessful.
Case No: 2402723/2024
2 (2) When the proceedings were begun the [APPELLANT] was in breach of its duty to provide the first claimant with a written statement of employment particulars.
(3) However, because this successful complaint falls within section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and is not a relevant jurisdiction where section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 applies, no award for this failure can be made.
REASONS (in relation to the reconsideration of the judgment only)
Introduction
1. Reasons for the substantive part of this judgment including findings of fact were provided orally to the parties at the final hearing during the afternoon of 27 March 2026.
2. These reasons are solely provided in order that the parties have full reasons of why the [APPELLANT]’s application for reconsideration following the oral delivery of the judgment on 27 March 2026 and before the final hearing concluded.
3. The [APPELLANT]’s representative made an application for reconsideration during the course of the final hearing in accordance with Rule 69. They argued that the financial award made in relation to the successful complaint brought under section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 could not be subject to a payment under section 38 Employment Act 2002.
4. The claimant was provided with an explanation regarding the reasons for the [APPELLANT]’s application by Judge Johnson and given an opportunity to make any representations disputing the grounds for the application. The claimant has not provided any representations at the time that this judgment was formally reconsidered on 13 April 2026.
The reconsideration
5. The original judgment of the Tribunal firstly dismissed the claimant’s equal pay claim.
6. However, the judgment also determined that the [APPELLANT] had failed to provide the first claimant with a written statement of employment particulars. This was contrary to section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 11 provides the Employment Tribunal with jurisdiction to hear complaints brought by workers seeking enforcement the duty under section 1.
7. The second part of the judgment in paragraph (2) included the following words relating to this successful complaint: ‘It is just and equitable to make an award of an amount equal to four weeks’ gross pay. In accordance with section 38 Employment Act 2002 the [APPELLANT] shall therefore pay the claimant £420.’
Case No: 2402723/2024
3
8. However, having considered the [APPELLANT]’s application seeking reconsideration, the Tribunal accepts that section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 does not permit such an award. Section 38 only permits us to make an award for a failure to give statement of employment particulars in relating to circumstances where a claim is made in favour of the claimant under any of the jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 of the 2002 Act.
9. Schedule 5 of the 2002 Act identifies ‘TRIBUNAL JURISDICTIONS TO WHICH SECTION 38 APPLIES’. However, the only complaints under the Employment Rights Act 1996 which are included are section 23 (unauthorised deductions), section 48 (detriments in employment), section111 (unfair dismissal) and section 163 (redundancy payments).
10. The claimant’s successful complaint under section 11 is not included under Schedule 5 and is therefore not subject to awards under section 38 of the 2002 Act. Consequently, while a declaration of a failure can be made under section 1 relating to written statements of employment particulars, no financial remedy is payable. Moreover, because the claimant no longer works for the [APPELLANT], it appears unnecessary for any determination of her particulars to take place as permitted by section 11.
11. Consequently, the judgment has been varied in accordance with section 70 and all references to a payment being made under section 38 of the 2002 are revoked and removed from paragraph (2) of the judgment. Paragraph (3) of the reconsidered judgment has been included as a result of this decision and to explain why no payment arises following the declaration in paragraph (2).
____EJ A Johnson ___________
Employment Judge Johnson
Date____13 April 2026_________
JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON
14 May 2026
FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE
Case No: 2402723/2024
4
Notes
Reasons for the substantive judgment having been given orally at the hearing, written reasons will not be provided unless a request was made by either party at the hearing or a written request is presented by either party within 14 days of the sending of this written record of the decision.
The parties should further note that full reasons have been given regarding the reconsideration decision provided within this judgment.
Public access to employment tribunal decisions
Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at www.gov.uk/employment-tribunal-decisions shortly after a copy has been sent to the claimant(s) and [APPELLANT](s) in a case.
Recording and Transcription
Please note that if a Tribunal hearing has been recorded you may request a transcript of the recording, for which a charge may be payable. If a transcript is produced it will not include any oral judgment or reasons given at the hearing. The transcript will not be checked, approved or verified by a judge. There is more information in the joint Presidential Practice Direction on the Recording and Transcription of Hearings, and accompanying Guidance, which can be found here:
https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/employment-rules-and-legislation-practice- directions/
📊 How courts decide similar cases
Among 12 similar decisions in this collection:
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Claimant's Complaints Against Employer
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects All Discrimination Claims Against DVLA
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rejects Unfair Dismissal and Breach of Contract Claims
- Employment Tribunal Home Office Wins Disability Discrimination Case at Employment Tribunal
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Disability Discrimination and Pay Statements
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Rules on Age Discrimination and Disability Adjustments
- Employment Tribunal Employment Tribunal Dismisses Race Discrimination and Whistleblowing Claims
- Employment Tribunal Holiday Pay Claim Successful in Employment Tribunal Case
A snapshot of this collection — not a prediction of your case's outcome.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
❌ Tends to be rejected
- {'An employer is not required to provide financial remedies for breaches that do not fall within specific jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002.': ''}
- {'Employers are not mandated to compensate for certain types of breaches if they are outside the scope defined by law, such as providing a written statement of employment particulars under the Employment Rights Act 1996 without financial remedy.': ''}
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What did this decision decide?
The tribunal dismissed an equal pay claim but found that the employer had breached its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars.
Who was involved?
A worker and their employer were involved in the case.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided based on the specific provisions of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Employment Act 2002.
Which laws or rules were applied?
Equality Act 2010 s.13, Employment Rights Act 1996 s.1, and Employment Act 2002 s.38 were applied.
What was the argument that mattered most?
The employer argued that section 38 of the Employment Act 2002 did not permit an award for a failure to provide written employment particulars under section 11 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was partially against the claimant as their equal pay claim was dismissed, but they were found to have a successful breach claim.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation may find that while an employer's failure to provide written employment particulars is recognised, no financial remedy may be available if the case falls outside specific jurisdictions listed in Schedule 5 of the Employment Act 2002.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment does not specify particular evidence or documents; it relies on statutory interpretation and application.
Can a decision like this be appealed?
Yes, decisions from an employment tribunal can typically be appealed to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Is it worth getting a solicitor for a case like this?
It is advisable to seek legal advice from a qualified solicitor for cases involving complex statutory interpretation and potential financial remedies.