Part-time judges ‘out of time’ to claim pension rights

Topics: Employment,Courts business,Judicial

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save

Related images

  • Justicelaing

A group of part-time judges has been refused permission to bring claims for better pensions after a judge ruled they were out of time.

The claims were brought after the Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that part-time judges are ‘workers for the purpose of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000’, enabling part-time recorder Dermod O’Brien to win his fight to claim a full pension. 

Advertisement

Miller & Others v The Ministry of Justice went to the Employment Appeal Tribunal after an employment tribunal ruled in January 2014 that the part-time judges were out of time to bring a case. 

At the first hearing, the claimants argued that there would have been no point bringing the claim before a final decision was made in O’Brien, which they said was a test case. They also said that the MoJ had issued a moratorium in 2013 preventing the need for potential claimants to lodge 'protective' claims.

But employment judge John MacMillan said the claimants were sophisticated litigants and would have known that as part-timers they had no access to the MoJ’s pension scheme. The judge also said they would have known that if they had a claim, a limitation period would apply.

The tribunal judgment commented: ‘It seems that we have a large crowd of onlookers knowing that if the outsider wins they will benefit greatly but, doubting his chances of success, they wait until he unexpectedly pips the favourite at the post only to object when the bookmaker refuses to accept bets on the entirely understandable grounds that the race is over!’

On appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal, the claimants argued that MacMillan did not ‘balance off’ the fact that O’Brien was a test case, and said he did not properly consider the reasons for the MoJ's moratorium, namely that the tribunal would have been swamped if claimants had issued their claims in time.

But in the appeal tribunal Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE (pictured) dismissed this argument, pointing out that the claims were already ‘well out of time’ by the time the moratorium was issued in 2013.

She said: ‘The issue is not whether […] it would have been "just and equitable" to have a flood of claims before the moratorium, but not after it was published. The issue is whether it was just and equitable for time to be extended for those who should have made claims before the moratorium was published.’

Laing also said she would not accept the argument that the employment tribunal should have considered what would have happened had the claims been issued in time.

She said: ‘The likelihood (if it be one) that a claim issued within a limitation period would have been stayed is neither here nor there, nor is the fact that if all claims had been issued in time, there would have been a flood of them.’

She ruled the employment tribunal was right to refuse to extend time, and dismissed the part-time judges' appeal.

Readers' comments (5)

  • Something something judicial amour-propre. We must have process above, before and at the expense of all things.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Judges' claim dismissed for missing a deadline. A saying about living by the sword springs to mind ...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shocking behaviour by MOJ. Now they are closing courts and inventing Case Officers to do the part time judges' jobs. Anything to avoid paying public servants a pension.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or take care of the plank in your own eye before commenting on the mote in others'" Anon 3.58. As they say, one in the eye for the law.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Or "judge not that yea be not judged"...

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

  • Print
  • Share
  • Comments (5)
  • Save

Petty france

Third-party JR funders must be allowed anonymity – Law Society

25 August 2016By

Ministry of Justice says identification of funders giving more than £3,000 will ensure equality of arms.

Dixon3

Buy-to-let tax changes ‘legislation by stealth’

24 August 2016By

Law Society says amendments at committee stage 'set disturbing precedent'. 

Jeremy Wright QC MP

‘Unduly lenient’ sentences hiked for 102 offenders

24 August 2016By Gazette reporter

Number has risen 13% since 2010, but requests have more than doubled – suggesting judges ‘generally get sentencing right’. 

Advertisement

Sign up for email news alerts

Daily Update. Keep abreast of the latest developments that affect the profession

Legal Services

Browse the magazine

Current Issue

The Gazette offers you up-to-the-minute national and international news, opinion, features, in-depth articles plus a jobs and appointments section.

Please click the link below for a digital edition