Supreme Court InteriorListed for two days from Monday 20 May 2013 is the Scottish appeal of North & Ors v Dumfries and Galloway Council, to be heard by a panel of five (L Hope, L Hale, L Wilson, L Reed and L Hughes). Over two hundred equal pay claims were brought by employees of the respondent council’s schools that worked as classroom assistants and nursery nurses. The female employees sought to compare themselves to male employees of the council that did not work in schools, whose employment terms and conditions were contained in a different collective agreement. At first instance the Employment Tribunal allowed the claims to proceed – whilst there were no common terms and conditions between the appellants and their chosen comparators, common terms and conditions were, or would be, observed for employees of the comparators’ class at each of the relevant establishments. The EAT overturned this on the basis that there was no real possibility of the chosen comparators doing their jobs in schools. The Inner House of the Court of Session held that whilst the EAT had erred in its articulation of a “real possibility” test, its finding that if the comparators worked in schools their terms and conditions would not be broadly similar to their existing terms should be upheld and the appeal dismissed. It is for the Supreme Court to determine in what circumstances (if any) can a claimant in an equal pay claim show that she is in the “same employment” as a man employed by the same or an associated employer at a different establishment in a different job from any job carried out at the woman’s establishment and under a different collective agreement.

On Wednesday 22 May 2013 the Supreme Court will hand down judgment in the following: Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Marks and Spencer plc; Vestergaard Frandsen A/S (now called mvf3 Apps) & Ors v Bestnet Europe Limited & Ors; Public Prosecution Service of Northern Ireland v Elliott and Public Prosecution Service v McKee.

In the Privy Council from Monday 20 until Tuesday 21 May 2013 is the matter of Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda, on appeal from the Court of Appeal of Antigua and Barbuda. The Government of Antigua and Barbuda entered into a joint venture agreement with the appellant company relating to the construction of a power station, and this action relates to an attempt to judicially review the decision to repudiate that agreement.

The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding:

Ministry of Defence v Smith & Ors, heard 18 – 21 February 2013.

In the Matter of B (a Child), heard 25 – 26 February 2013.

Benedetti v Sawiris & Ors, heard 26 – 28 February 2013.

Petrodel Resources Ltd & Ors v Prest, heard 5 – 6 March 2013.

R v Brown, heard 7 March 2013.

Bank Mellat  v Her Majesty’s Treasury, heard 19 – 21 March 2013.

Abela & Ors v Baadarani, heard 10 – 11 April 2013.

Booth v The Parole Board, Osborn v The Parole Board and In the matter of an application of Reilly for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland), heard 16 – 18 April 2013.

Cusack v London Borough of Harrow, heard 23 April 2013.

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Ltd), heard 29 – 30 April 2013.

O’Neill (No 2) v Her Majesty’s Advocate and Lauchlan v Her Majesty’s Advocate, heard 29 – 30 April 2013.

Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant JSC v AES Ust-Kamenogorsk Hydropower Plant LLP, heard 1 – 2 May 2013.

R (AA) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 6 – 7 May 2013.

R (Sturnham) v Parole Board for England and Wales & Anor, heard 9 May 2013.

Apollo Engineering Ltd v James Scott Ltd , heard 13 May 2013.

Re Nortel Companies; Re Lehman Companies; and Re Lehman Companies (No 2), heard 14 – 16 May 2013.

Re an application by Central Craigavon Ltd for Judicial Review, heard 15 May 2013.