https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj0817jd9dqo
The judge decided that, despite prices suggesting otherwise, the two types of labour here were the same.
That has nothing to with the recent legislation referred to in the article. The principle (which I disagree with BTW) has been part of equality law for decades.
Ah, I see, an argument that there was gender discrimination in pay for 'equal value' jobs despite the actual job being different. I agree this decision seems like a bit of a strange reach, but it's far from saying it abolishes the market for labor entirely.
(Also, this is more part of the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that is in pretty dire need of redrafting for a bunch of other reasons, as opposed to the Employment Rights Act)