The government’s transitional provisions on judicial pensions unlawfully discriminated against 210 High Court Judges on the grounds of age, London Central Employment Tribunal has held.
Ruling in McCloud, Mostyn & Ors v Lord Chancellor and Ministry of Justice (2201483/15), Judge Williams held the government had failed to show their treatment of the judges was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
The judicial pension scheme closed on 31 March 2015, and serving judges were transferred to a new scheme that provides less valuable benefits. However, older judges were allowed to remain members of the historic scheme either until retirement or until the end of a period of tapered protection. Six high court judges brought the claim.
Shah Qureshi, partner at Bindmans, who acted for the judges, said: “The protection of those closest to retirement at the expense of younger judges was not a legitimate aim nor was it proportionate.”
Shubha Banerjee, partner at Leigh Day, who also acted for the judges, said the decision could have ramifications for other public sector groups, such as police officers, teachers, firefighters and prison officers, who have been subjected to similar negative changes to their pensions.
A government spokesperson said: “We are disappointed by the court's findings and will be considering whether to appeal the judgment.”
