Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66
Established the purpose principle of statutory interpretation, whereby Courts interpret domestic legislation so as to give force to EU law.
Facts
The claimant, Ms Pickstone, was an employee of the defendants, Freemans, where she worked as a warehouse operative and received a salary equivalent to that of her male counterparts performing the same job. However, the warehouse checkers, who were male, benefit from a greater salary than the warehouse operatives, receiving £1.22 per week more. Ms Pickstone subsequently alleged that the defendants were in breach of the Equal Pay Act 1970
Issues
Whether an employer is in breach of equal pay legislation where it has different pay rates for workers completing work of the same value who are of different genders.
Decision/Outcome
The Court of Appeal determined that Freemans was not in breach however this was overturned upon appeal by the House of Lords who found for Ms Pickstone, and deemed that Freemans was in breach of equal pay legislation. Whilst a literal reading of British legislation would have meant that Freemans was not breaching equal pay rights as the warehouse operatives and warehouse checkers were performing different jobs, this result would mean that Britain was in result of its obligations arising from European treaties to give force to a directive to legislate and protect equal pay. Subsequently, the Lords adopted a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, permitting Ms Pickstone’s claim on the grounds that she was being paid less than male workers completing work of equal value, despite that the work per se was not the same.
Words: 265
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains broadly accurate as a description of the House of Lords’ decision in Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66 and its significance for purposive statutory interpretation in the equal pay context. However, readers should be aware of several important developments.
First, the Equal Pay Act 1970 has been repealed and replaced by the Equality Act 2010, which now governs equal pay claims in Great Britain. The relevant provisions are found in Chapter 3 of the Equality Act 2010 (sections 64–80), including the equal work provisions covering like work, work rated as equivalent, and work of equal value. The underlying principle affirmed in Pickstone — that a claimant may bring a work of equal value claim even where a man is employed on like work with her — is reflected in the current statutory framework.
Second, following the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, the duty to interpret domestic legislation so as to give effect to EU directives (the principle sometimes called Marleasing-conforming or purposive EU interpretation) has been significantly modified. Under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, the general principle of EU-consistent interpretation of retained EU law was abolished from 1 January 2024. Courts are no longer required to interpret domestic legislation purposively to give effect to EU law in the same way as they were when Pickstone was decided. The case retains historical and doctrinal significance, but its interpretive principle now operates in a materially different constitutional context.
Students should therefore treat the article’s framing of the purposive principle as an enduring general rule with caution, and should consult the Equality Act 2010 and current retained EU law materials for the up-to-date position.
