Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Personnel Today

Register
Log in
Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+

Age discriminationCase lawPublic sectorPensions

Judges win pension age discrimination claims

by Personnel Today 17 Jan 2017
by Personnel Today 17 Jan 2017 Photo: Kippa Limited/REX/Shutterstock.
Photo: Kippa Limited/REX/Shutterstock.

An employment tribunal has ruled that the Government discriminated against more than 200 judges when it implemented the transitional provisions for the new judicial pension scheme.

In April 2015, judges at various levels of the judiciary were moved from their existing pensions scheme to a new judicial pensions scheme with greatly reduced benefits.

However, transitional provisions allowed judges 58 years of age or over at the time to remain in the original scheme, and for judges between 55 and 57 years of age at the time to remain in the original scheme for an additional limited period.

More XpertHR resources

Podcast: Impact of removal of default retirement age

Age discrimination

Can employers operate a compulsory retirement age?

As a result of the transfer, the highest-earning judges could incur hundreds of thousands of pounds in losses.

To replace the lost value to his or her pension, a judge would have to contribute at least an additional £30,000 per year.

Judges who were moved from the original scheme, or who were allowed to remain for a limited period only, claimed discrimination on the basis of age.

The judges also claimed indirect discrimination on the grounds of gender and race, as the younger cohort included a greater proportion of female and ethnic minority judges.

The Government argued that differential treatment was justified on the basis that the transitional provisions were meant to protect members who were closest to retirement.

However, the employment tribunal found that this was not a legitimate aim, as members who were closest to retirement were less adversely affected by the pension reforms and less in need of protection.

The employment tribunal also found that the transitional provisions were not a proportionate way of achieving the Government’s stated aim.

Shubha Banerjee, solicitor at Leigh Day, said: “This is a great victory for our clients, many of whom sit alongside older judges who were appointed some years after them but who are, in effect, paid more purely because they are older.

“The fact that there is a significant number of female and BME judges in the younger group simply compounds the unfairness of the changes that were made to judicial pensions.

”According to Judicial Office Statistics, about one-third of all judges in England and Wales last year were female, and only 7% described themselves as from a black or other minority ethnic background.”

Qian Mou, employment law editor at XpertHR said: “The Government’s rationale for adopting the transitional provisions was largely to be consistent with other sectors where pensions reform and transitional provisions had been applied.

Sign up to our weekly round-up of HR news and guidance

Receive the Personnel Today Direct e-newsletter every Wednesday

OptOut
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

“The employment tribunal was very critical of this approach, as the Government had failed to consider the need for such protection and the impact it would have in the given context.”

Firefighters have lodged a similar age discrimination pensions claim, which is currently being heard at an employment tribunal.

Personnel Today

Personnel Today articles are written by an expert team of award-winning journalists who have been covering HR and L&D for many years. Some of our content is attributed to "Personnel Today" for a number of reasons, including: when numerous authors are associated with writing or editing a piece; or when the author is unknown (particularly for older articles).

previous post
Cardiff leads British cities as UK ranks third for talent
next post
Brexit to bring tighter controls on immigration, May confirms

You may also like

HMRC releases research on removing salary sacrifice tax...

28 May 2025

Unions ponder strike action after public sector pay...

23 May 2025

Public sector workers gain pay rises of up...

22 May 2025

Consultation launched after Supreme Court ‘sex’ ruling

20 May 2025

Public sector needs 92,000 more workers to remain...

19 May 2025

EHRC bows to pressure and extends gender consultation

15 May 2025

Tribunal finds need for degree in redundancy selection...

14 May 2025

Thousands of civil service roles to leave London

14 May 2025

Healthcare workers prioritise mental health support in new...

12 May 2025

Nurses threaten strikes if pay demands not met

12 May 2025

  • 2025 Employee Communications Report PROMOTED | HR and leadership...Read more
  • The Majority of Employees Have Their Eyes on Their Next Move PROMOTED | A staggering 65%...Read more
  • Prioritising performance management: Strategies for success (webinar) WEBINAR | In today’s fast-paced...Read more
  • Self-Leadership: The Key to Successful Organisations PROMOTED | Eletive is helping businesses...Read more
  • Retaining Female Talent: Four Ways to Reduce Workplace Drop Out PROMOTED | International Women’s Day...Read more

Personnel Today Jobs
 

Search Jobs

PERSONNEL TODAY

About us
Contact us
Browse all HR topics
Email newsletters
Content feeds
Cookies policy
Privacy policy
Terms and conditions

JOBS

Personnel Today Jobs
Post a job
Why advertise with us?

EVENTS & PRODUCTS

The Personnel Today Awards
The RAD Awards
Employee Benefits
Forum for Expatriate Management
OHW+
Whatmedia

ADVERTISING & PR

Advertising opportunities
Features list 2025

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • Linkedin


© 2011 - 2025 DVV Media International Ltd

Personnel Today
  • Home
    • All PT content
  • Email sign-up
  • Topics
    • HR Practice
    • Employee relations
    • Learning & training
    • Pay & benefits
    • Wellbeing
    • Recruitment & retention
    • HR strategy
    • HR Tech
    • The HR profession
    • Global
    • All HR topics
  • Legal
    • Case law
    • Commentary
    • Flexible working
    • Legal timetable
    • Maternity & paternity
    • Shared parental leave
    • Redundancy
    • TUPE
    • Disciplinary and grievances
    • Employer’s guides
  • AWARDS
    • Personnel Today Awards
    • The RAD Awards
  • Jobs
    • Find a job
    • Jobs by email
    • Careers advice
    • Post a job
  • Brightmine
    • Learn more
    • Products
    • Free trial
    • Request a quote
  • Webinars
  • Advertise
  • OHW+