The year so far has seen a number of disagreements in the grocery sector, from issues such as pay and employment to property and packaging.

While some court cases have been resolved, others are ongoing and could impact both the companies, their employees and the wider industry.

We take a look at five of the biggest grocery sector court cases this year, looking at who’s affected, what the outcomes are, and what this will mean for those involved.

Earlier this month, the second stage of a landmark court case, which is set to impact over 60,000 Asda employees, began.

The case, which according to GMB, is expected to last three months, will see the union argue that the grocery giant’s predominantly female retail workforce is unfairly paid up to £3.74 an hour less than the warehouse workers, who are mainly men as the work is of equal value to Asda.

The equal value case is now in its second stage and is one of the biggest in the private sector.

The tribunal will look at multiple jobs including checkout operators, shop floor staff and customer service desk in retail, and, in depots, roles including warehouse colleagues who operate high reach trucks and those who work in a chilled or frozen environment.

If the roles are found to be of equal value, the case is expected to move to a third and final stage, which will consider whether there are justifiable reasons for the pay differences. If successful, the union has claimed the bill for the retailer could “run into billions of pounds”.

An Asda spokesperson told Grocery Gazette that it “strongly rejects” any claims that its pay rates are influenced by gender.

They added: “There are numerous different jobs within retail and within warehouses. We continue to defend these claims because retail and distribution are two different industry sectors that have their own distinct skill sets and pay structures.”

A ruling is expected to take place in 2025.

In April, Tesco and Usdaw’s long-running legal battle over claims of “fire and rehire” tactics was heard in the Supreme Court and last week the grocer had lost its appeal.

In 2007, Tesco offered a permanent “retained pay” enhancement for staff to relocate from closing distribution centres to new ones in Daventry and Lichfield under a collective agreement with Usdaw.

In the latest update last week, a Supreme Court judge ruled that Tesco cannot terminate the employment contracts of its employees for the specific purpose of depriving them of “retained pay”.

A spokesperson for Tesco said the grocery retailer accepted the Supreme Court’s judgement.

They added: “Our colleagues in our distribution centres play a really critical role in helping us to serve our customers and we value all their hard work. Our objective in this has always been to ensure fairness across all our DC colleagues. Today’s judgment relates to a contractual dispute brought on behalf of a very small number of colleagues in our UK distribution network who receive a supplement to their pay.

“This supplement was offered many years ago as an incentive to retain certain colleagues and the vast majority of our distribution colleagues today do not receive this top up. In 2021, we took the decision to phase it out. We made a competitive offer to affected colleagues at that time, and many of them chose to accept this. Our aim has always been to engage constructively with Usdaw and the small number of colleagues affected.”

At the end of last year, plant-based brand Oatly won a High Court battle against the UK dairy industry, allowing it to continue using the word ‘milk’ on its packaging.

The important legal milestone for the plant-based industry was made following a four-year battle over the use of the slogan ‘Post Milk Generation’ on the Swedish brand‘s products.

Dairy UK – the British dairy industry’s trade association representing dairy giants such as Arla and Lakeland Foods – argued that Oatly should not use the term ‘milk’ in a trademark “in relation to products that are not mammary secretions”.

It referenced a pre-Brexit European Court regulation from 2013 that controlled the use of the word ‘milk’ on the packaging and marketing of a product.

High Court judge Mr Justice Richard Smith rejected this argument, ruling that Oatly can continue to use the slogan on its products, stating that consumer deception would be unlikely.

He added that the “average customer” would recognise that Oatly’s trademark was clearly for consumers who no longer consume dairy milk, and hence “claims, suggests or implies that products marketed in conjunction with it are dairy products”.

In March 2025, drinks giant Diageo will be taken to court by Thomas and Gail Chalmers over the company’s distillery that left their house in Bonnybridge, Falkirk covered in a black fungus – a decade after the dark soot first spread to the couple’s home.

The couple, who live near nine Diageo warehouses, first filed a lawsuit against the FMCG giant in 2014 and again in 2017  for £40,000 in damages to their property.

Last year the Chalmers won the right to sue, before defending an appeal in January this year by Diageo attempting to have the case dismissed.

A spokesperson for Diageo told Grocery Gazette: “While disappointed with the decision taken by the court in January, we will continue to defend ourselves vigorously in these proceedings.”

The claimants are one of hundreds in Scotland who have claimed Scotch distilleries have caused fungus Baudoinia compniacensis to cover their property, as the fungus feeds on alcohol vapours — dubbed ‘angel’s share’ — from maturing casks of Scotch.

The case represent a landmark ruling and if the Chalmers are successful it will be a great blow to the alcohol industry, which is currently facing residents around the world near distillery plants complaining about the invasive fungus.

A Supreme Court unanimously dismissed an appeal and stated that Deliveroo riders cannot be classified as “workers” under UK labour laws due to their “employment relationship”, meaning the delivery giant cannot be made to engage with trade unions looking to represent drivers.

In its written ruling, the court pointed out that food delivery riders could appoint a substitute to undertake a delivery, can work for competitors, and do not have to work specific hours or carry out deliveries at all.

It stated that these elements of Deliveroo’s relationship with its riders were “fundamentally inconsistent with any notion of an employment relationship” and they were instead considered as self-employed.

Riders are therefore not allowed to form a trade union for the purpose of collective bargaining and cannot be represented by the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain (IWGB).

The union said: “Whether reflected in legislation or not, couriers are joining the union in ever bigger numbers and building our collective power to take action and hold companies like Deliveroo to account.”

Deliveroo said the judgement was a “positive” one for riders “who value the flexibility that self-employed work offers”.