The claimants are primarily female store staff who have been seeking equal pay with their primarily male colleagues in the respondent's distribution centres. The respondent was appealing the ET's judgment arising from a Stage 2 hearing on several grounds as set out at [68] arguing, broadly, they had excluded several material facts from the comparators.

As Stacey J notes at [6] "The significance of the Stage 2 Hearing is that the only facts on which the tribunal shall rely at the Stage 3 Hearing are those which have been agreed or determined at the Stage 2". After a lengthy review of the 2013 Rules and the tribunal's findings, she allows several grounds of appeal but rejects the respondent's submission that the judgment was worthless. From [210] she also makes comments about the need for procedural rigour in such cases.