Next wins key UK equal pay appeal

The Employment Appeal Tribunal ruled on 7 September 2026 that Next can lawfully pay different basic rates to its shop and warehouse employees. The decision overturns a 2024 employment-tribunal ruling that had required the retailer to raise store staff basic pay to match higher warehouse rates. The appeal tribunal accepted that Next faces different market conditions and recruitment and retention pressures in its warehouses compared with its shops. On that basis, it held that the company was entitled to set higher basic pay in warehouses than in retail outlets.

Next stated that the judgment confirmed its position that it should not be required to pay shop assistants and warehouse operatives the same basic rate where the markets and working environments differ. The company described the ruling as affirming the principle that employers can reflect market pressures in pay-setting. It also said the outcome would avoid a threat to the viability of many of its stores, which it argued would have faced higher cost pressures under the earlier ruling.

The litigation covers the period from 2012 to 2023 and has developed into a major collective claim against the retailer. An initial group of 3,540 claimants won at the employment tribunal in Leeds in 2024 after a multi-year legal process. Following that decision, several thousand additional employees brought equal pay claims, taking the total number of claimants in the case to more than 6,400.

The claims centre on pay differences between predominantly shop-based retail roles and warehouse roles. The original tribunal compared pay and terms across these functions when assessing whether the company’s practices complied with equal pay law. While the appeal has now resolved the core question of basic pay in Next’s favour, the broader case remains active due to other contested elements of pay and conditions.

Both the original employment tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal concluded that there was no direct sex discrimination in Next’s pay-setting. The appeal tribunal’s ruling on basic pay therefore turns on justification for different rates rather than on findings of discriminatory intent. The decision confirms that the company’s reliance on market factors for warehouse pay was accepted at appeal level.

However, the appeal was not wholly successful for Next. The appeal tribunal did not overturn findings that the company had failed to justify certain other pay-related terms, including paid rest breaks. It also rejected some of Next’s arguments on additional aspects of pay and directed at least one of those issues back to the employment tribunal for further consideration.

Next has said it will seek permission to appeal the remaining points that were not resolved in its favour, including the question of paid rest breaks for store workers. As a result, while the core issue of basic pay has been settled at the appeal stage, parts of the dispute over other elements of remuneration will continue. The evolving case therefore still carries implications for both the retailer and thousands of current and former employees involved in the litigation.