The underlying claims form part of long-running equal pay litigation, pursued mostly by female shop-based employees, against Tesco Stores Limited. There was to be a hearing to decide the order in which various issues, including Material Factors Defence (MFD) issues, should be heard. It was not argued by either party that the MFD issues should be heard before the final hearing. There was a delay in getting an expert's report which caused the Claimants to be concerned that this would mean the final equal value hearing could not take place until 2026. The Claimants asked for a hearing to invite the ET in the changed circumstances to direct a hearing of the Material Factors Defence issues in 2025, before the final equal value hearing, so that progress would be made in 2025.The ET ruled that an MFD hearing should be heard before the final equal value hearing and ordered disclosure of various documents from Tesco. Tesco appealed the orders.

The EAT dismissed the appeal, saying the EAT should be especially slow to interfere with case management decisions in substantial multi-claimant litigation such as this, given by an assigned managing judge with prior experience of the case and a consequent understanding of its dynamics and of the historical and litigious context in which particular case management decisions are being made. In group equal pay litigation such as this, there will often be a substantial overlap between determination of issues - and appeals against determinations of issues. That is a price that must be paid to avoid unacceptable delay. Respondents and indeed Claimants cannot expect the luxury of awaiting the outcome of each issue sequentially, still less appeals on each issue.