Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
May 02, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	Commitments and contingencies Legal proceedings As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants’ Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI’s opposition was filed on May 1, 2015 and Claimants’ reply is due on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants’ opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI’s reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI’s motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on May 22, 2015. Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014 the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties have fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation’s employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys’ fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. The deadline to opt-out of the proposed settlement was January 26, 2015 and final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015. The Company is investigating the underlying allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously defend its position against them. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Litigation Challenging the Company’s Acquisition of Zale Corporation Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the “Actions”). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders. The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the “Consolidated Action”), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger. On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation’s former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer names as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company’s merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. Appraisal Litigation Following the consummation of the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation, on June 4, 2014, two former Zale Corporation stockholders, who, combined, allege ownership of approximately 3.904 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a petition for appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Merion Capital L.P. et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 9731-VCP. On August 26, 2014, another former Zale Corporation stockholder, who alleges ownership of approximately 2.450 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a second petition for appraisal, captioned TIG Arbitrage Opportunity Fund I, L.P. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10070-VCP. On September 24, 2014, several former Zale Corporation stockholders, who allege ownership of approximately 2.427 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a third petition for appraisal, captioned The Gabelli ABC Fund et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10162-VCP. On October 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Merion Capital, TIG, and Gabelli actions for all purposes (the “Appraisal Action”). Petitioners in the Appraisal Action seek a judgment awarding them, among other things, the fair value of their Zale Corporation shares. “Fair value” under Section 8 Del. C. 262(h) is “exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger or consolidation, together with interest, if any, to be paid upon the amount determined to be the fair value.” Section 8 Del. C. § 262 provides that unless the Court in its discretion determines otherwise for good cause shown, interest from the effective date of the merger through the date of payment of the judgment shall be compounded quarterly and shall accrue at 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate (including any surcharge) as established from time to time during the period between the effective date of the merger and the date of payment of the judgment. The total number of shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock for which appraisal has been demanded and not requested to be withdrawn is approximately 8.8 million, inclusive of the shares allegedly held by petitioners in the Appraisal Action. The parties in the Appraisal Action are currently engaged in discovery. The parties have agreed to a trial in this matter on October 8, 9, 26, and 27, 2015, subject to final order of the Court. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated. In the ordinary course of business, Signet may be subject, from time to time, to various other proceedings, lawsuits, disputes or claims incidental to its business, which the Company believes are not significant to Signet’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Commitments and contingencies

Legal proceedings

As previously reported, in March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the “Claimants”) filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed the motion. A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide hearing Claimants’ disparate impact declaratory and injunctive relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July 22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants’ compensation claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants’ promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants’ motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class under the Equal Pay Act. On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015. Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11, 2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants’ Motion for Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on March 16, 2015. Claimants’ Motion was denied in an order issued April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Conditional Certification of Claimants’ Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization of Notice on March 6, 2015. SJI’s opposition was filed on May 1, 2015 and Claimants’ reply is due on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants’ opposition was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI’s reply was filed on April 3, 2015. SJI’s motion was heard on May 4, 2015. On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants’ Motion for Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015. Claimants’ reply was filed on May 22, 2015.

Also, as previously reported, on September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC’s lawsuit alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact discovery closed in mid-May 2013. In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge. The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment motion in December 2013. On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report, Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI’s motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC’s claims in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014 entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice. On May 12, 2014 the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the District Court Judge’s dismissal of the action to United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties have fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation’s employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys’ fees as a result of the alleged violations. Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. The deadline to opt-out of the proposed settlement was January 26, 2015 and final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015.

The Company is investigating the underlying allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously defend its position against them. At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

Litigation Challenging the Company’s Acquisition of Zale Corporation

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v. Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014 (collectively, the “Actions”). Each of these Actions was brought by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock, both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014 (the “Consolidated Action”), and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation’s former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation directors’ breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no longer names as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company’s merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint seeks, among other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as attorneys’ and experts’ fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015.

At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

Appraisal Litigation

Following the consummation of the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation, on June 4, 2014, two former Zale Corporation stockholders, who, combined, allege ownership of approximately 3.904 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a petition for appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned Merion Capital L.P. et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 9731-VCP. On August 26, 2014, another former Zale Corporation stockholder, who alleges ownership of approximately 2.450 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a second petition for appraisal, captioned TIG Arbitrage Opportunity Fund I, L.P. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10070-VCP. On September 24, 2014, several former Zale Corporation stockholders, who allege ownership of approximately 2.427 million shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock, filed a third petition for appraisal, captioned The Gabelli ABC Fund et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10162-VCP. On October 8, 2014, the Court of Chancery consolidated the Merion Capital, TIG, and Gabelli actions for all purposes (the “Appraisal Action”). Petitioners in the Appraisal Action seek a judgment awarding them, among other things, the fair value of their Zale Corporation shares. “Fair value” under Section 8 Del. C. 262(h) is “exclusive of any element of value arising from the accomplishment or expectation of the merger or consolidation, together with interest, if any, to be paid upon the amount determined to be the fair value.” Section 8 Del. C. § 262 provides that unless the Court in its discretion determines otherwise for good cause shown, interest from the effective date of the merger through the date of payment of the judgment shall be compounded quarterly and shall accrue at 5% over the Federal Reserve discount rate (including any surcharge) as established from time to time during the period between the effective date of the merger and the date of payment of the judgment.

The total number of shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock for which appraisal has been demanded and not requested to be withdrawn is approximately 8.8 million, inclusive of the shares allegedly held by petitioners in the Appraisal Action. The parties in the Appraisal Action are currently engaged in discovery. The parties have agreed to a trial in this matter on October 8, 9, 26, and 27, 2015, subject to final order of the Court.

At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.

In the ordinary course of business, Signet may be subject, from time to time, to various other proceedings, lawsuits, disputes or claims incidental to its business, which the Company believes are not significant to Signet’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.