Arriva Kent & Surrey Equal Pay Claim to be Reheard After Tribunal Error
The EAT has overturned an Employment Tribunal decision, ordering a fresh hearing for Miss Mallik's equal value claim against Arriva Kent & Surrey.
• public
Equal Pay Case Against Arriva to be Reheard
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has ruled that an equal pay claim brought by Miss P Mallik against Arriva Kent & Surrey Limited must be reheard. Judge Stout found that the original Employment Tribunal had erred in law when it struck out Miss Mallik's equal value claim.
The case, Mallik v Arriva Kent & Surrey Limited [2025] EAT 139, centred on whether Miss Mallik's work was of equal value to that of her male comparators. The Employment Tribunal initially struck out the equal value claim based on a job evaluation report commissioned by Arriva.
Tribunal's Procedural Errors
The EAT determined that the Employment Tribunal had not adequately clarified whether it was striking out the claim under Rule 37(1)(a) (no reasonable prospect of success) or Paragraph 3(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to The Employment Tribunals (Constitution Rules and Procedure) Regulations 2013. This lack of clarity, coupled with inadequately reasoned justification, led the EAT to conclude that the decision was flawed.
Furthermore, the EAT found that the claimant was not given sufficient notice and a reasonable opportunity to present her case before the claim was struck out. Specifically, the claimant was not properly informed of the matters required by paragraph 3(4) prior to the initial strike-out, which prejudiced her ability to make informed submissions.
Remittal for Fresh Hearing
As a result of these procedural failings, the EAT set aside the Employment Tribunal's decision regarding the equal value claim. This aspect of Miss Mallik's claim has been remitted for a new hearing before a different Employment Tribunal.
A second ground of appeal, concerning the Employment Tribunal's failure to include a specific issue (related to toilet facilities) in the list of issues for the final hearing, was dismissed by the EAT.
Miss Mallik was represented by Mr Michael Uberoi and Ms Elizabeth Grace. Dr Mirza Ahmad represented Arriva Kent and Surrey Limited.
Read the entire judgement here: Miss P Mallik v Arriva Kent & Surrey Limited [2025] EAT 139
