Full Breakdown
Next Plc Wins Appeal Over Equal-Pay Ruling on Basic Pay
9/8/2026, 3:06:15 AM
Core Event
The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) has partially overturned a 2024 Employment Tribunal judgment that required Next Plc to pay its shop-floor staff the same higher basic rates as its warehouse operatives. The appeal succeeded on the “basic pay” issue, allowing the retailer to continue paying warehouse workers higher hourly wages on the basis of recruitment and retention pressures. The tribunal upheld other findings, including those on night-time premiums, overtime premiums and paid rest breaks.
Background & Context
In 2024, the Leeds Employment Tribunal found that Next’s shop-floor employees—predominantly women—were paid lower basic rates than the largely male warehouse workforce for work of equal value. The ruling was hailed as a landmark private-sector equal-pay victory and set the stage for potential back-pay of more than £30 million to the 3,540 claimants. Since then, additional staff have joined the case, raising the total number of claimants to over 6,400. Next employs more than 20,000 store staff across 458 UK and Ireland locations.
Data & Statistics
- Claimants: >6,400 employees (original 3,540 plus later claimants).
- Gender composition: Women comprised almost 78 % of retail sales roles; men made up about 53 % of warehouse positions.
- Potential back pay: Over £30 million estimated for the original claimants.
- Store footprint: Approximately 500 Next stores in the United Kingdom.
- Share movement: Next’s London-listed shares rose as much as 1.1 % on the day of the judgment and were up 12 % year-to-date.
Official Statements & Responses
Next described the decision as a “landmark victory,” emphasizing that the EAT confirmed the legality of using market-force arguments to differentiate pay where genuine recruitment and retention pressures exist.
The EAT, through Justice Bourne, held that the original tribunal had erred in characterising Next’s justification for higher warehouse pay as merely cost-saving, noting instead that the retailer faced distinct labour-market conditions for warehouse roles.
Criticism & Opposition
Leigh Day, the law firm representing the shop-floor claimants, called the EAT’s conclusion on basic pay “disappointing.” Partner Elizabeth George said the tribunal “plainly” recognised that the pay practices disadvantage women and praised the upheld findings on night-time premiums, overtime premiums and paid rest breaks. Leigh Day indicated it will appeal the basic-pay decision.
Verbatim Quotes
- “The judgment affirms a principle at the heart of any effective employment market - that employers must be able to pay what is necessary to recruit the people they need; and that doing so does not oblige them to raise the pay of other employees where there is no reason to do so.” — Leigh Day
What’s Next
Next has said it will seek permission to appeal the EAT’s rulings on night-time premiums, overtime premiums and the removal of paid rest breaks. The firm also indicated that further submissions on the practical consequences of the judgment, including remediation, are forthcoming.
Conflicting Reports & Gaps
No substantive discrepancies appear among the sources regarding the core findings of the appeal. However, the final resolution of the remaining pay-term issues—such as night-time premiums and Sunday pay—remains pending, leaving the overall financial impact on claimants uncertain.
