Macarthys Ltd v Smith
decision of the European Court of Justice
Macarthys Ltd v Smith (1980) Case 129/79 is an EU law, UK constitutional law and UK labour law case, concerning the construction of a sex discrimination statute, and its compatibility with European treaties, now in the European Union.
Facts
Ms Wendy Smith worked for Macarthys Ltd in their factory. She was paid £50 a week, but a man who had previously worked in the same job for the company had been paid £60 a week. Ms Smith claimed this was unlawful according either to the Equal Pay Act 1970, or the Treaty of the European Community article 119. The company argued she had no claim because the UK's Equal Pay Act 1970 did not allow comparisons with former colleagues. Ms Smith argued that, if this was true under UK law, then European Community law did allow such a comparison, and it would override the UK statute.
Judgment
Court of Appeal
A majority held that Ms Smith had no claim because the EC treaties could not be used as an aid to interpreting UK law. Lord Denning MR dissented, and said that it could. He went on as follows.
Thus far I have assumed that our Parliament, whenever it passes legislation, intends to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Macarthys Ltd v Smith” is decision of the European Court of Justice. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Macarthys, Smith and decision, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “decision of the European Court of Justice” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 13, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q17133993. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1980 and 1970.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Macarthys Ltd v Smith”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Macarthys Ltd v Smith primary sources, Macarthys Ltd v Smith archive and Macarthys research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Macarthys Ltd v Smith”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Macarthys Ltd v Smith” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.