Commitments and contingencies	9 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 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. Claimants filed their reply 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 November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the AAA proceeding, 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. Claimants’ motion was granted on June 15, 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 fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 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 reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented. On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. §216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. The parties await a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. 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 named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company’s merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, 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. On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. 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 acquisition of Zale Corporation by the Company, former Zale Corporation stockholders sought appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in consolidated proceedings captioned Merion Capital L.P. et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 9731-VCP,TIG Arbitrage Opportunity Fund I, L.P. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10070-VCP,and The Gabelli ABC Fund et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10162-VCP(the “Appraisal Action”). The total number of shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock for which appraisal had been demanded was approximately 8.8 million. On August 12, 2015, the parties in the Appraisal Action entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). The terms of the Settlement Agreement provided for the payment to petitioners in the Appraisal Action of $21.00 per share of Zale Corporation common stock (the consideration offered in the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation) plus a total sum of $34.2 million to be allocated among petitioners, which proceeds are inclusive of and in satisfaction of any statutory interest that may have accrued on petitioners’ shares pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262. On August 12, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the Appraisal Action pursuant to the Settlement Agreement as to all former Zale Corporation stockholders who have submitted and not withdrawn a demand for appraisal. The Company recorded an accrual for the Settlement Agreement of $34.2 million during the second quarter of Fiscal 2016. This amount was paid to petitioners during the third quarter of Fiscal 2016. 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. Claimants filed their reply 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 November 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York granted SJI’s Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator’s Class Certification Award in part and denied it in part. On November 25, 2015, SJI filed a Motion to Stay the AAA Proceedings while SJI appeals the decision of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the AAA proceeding, 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. Claimants’ motion was granted on June 15, 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 fully briefed the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015. On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court’s order and remanding the case back to the District Court for further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 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 reached an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action Certification under 29 U.SC. §216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification on June 3, 2015. The parties await a ruling on the Motion for Class Certification. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position in this litigation. 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 named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company’s merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, 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. On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill Lynch. On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1, 2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.

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 acquisition of Zale Corporation by the Company, former Zale Corporation stockholders sought appraisal pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262 in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in consolidated proceedings captioned Merion Capital L.P. et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 9731-VCP,TIG Arbitrage Opportunity Fund I, L.P. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10070-VCP,and The Gabelli ABC Fund et al. v. Zale Corp., C.A. No. 10162-VCP(the “Appraisal Action”). The total number of shares of Zale Corporation’s common stock for which appraisal had been demanded was approximately 8.8 million.

On August 12, 2015, the parties in the Appraisal Action entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”). The terms of the Settlement Agreement provided for the payment to petitioners in the Appraisal Action of $21.00 per share of Zale Corporation common stock (the consideration offered in the Company’s acquisition of Zale Corporation) plus a total sum of $34.2 million to be allocated among petitioners, which proceeds are inclusive of and in satisfaction of any statutory interest that may have accrued on petitioners’ shares pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 262. On August 12, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the Appraisal Action pursuant to the Settlement Agreement as to all former Zale Corporation stockholders who have submitted and not withdrawn a demand for appraisal. The Company recorded an accrual for the Settlement Agreement of $34.2 million during the second quarter of Fiscal 2016. This amount was paid to petitioners during the third quarter of Fiscal 2016.

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.