This case discusses whether three part-time judges, previously Recorders and later appointed as Circuit Judges after 31 March 1995, were entitled to the same pension benefits as full-time Circuit Judges appointed before this date.
Case Background
Before 31 March 1995, full-time Circuit Judges received pension benefits under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981 (JPA). Following this date, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (JUPRA) introduced a less favourable pension scheme for new full-time Circuit Judges.
Claimant’s Argument
The claimants argued their pension entitlements were unfairly reduced compared to full-time judges because of their previous status as part-time Recorders. They claimed discrimination under the Part-Time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 (PTWR) and the Part-Time Workers Directive 97/81/EC (PTWD).
Initial Assumption
Initially, it seemed reasonable to assume that Recorders who became Circuit Judges after 31 March 1995 should have received equivalent pension benefits to those who were appointed before that date. However, Kerr J determined that there had been no unfavourable treatment.
Compensation
The respondents had already addressed potential issues by providing compensation equivalent to JPA benefits to part-time Recorders who remained in that role. This compensation was not extended to those who transitioned to the role of Circuit Judge after 31 March 1995.
Court’s Decision
When the claimants became full-time Circuit Judges, they switched to a pension scheme under JUPRA. This change in role, rather than their previous part-time status, dictated their pension benefits. They had already received proper compensation for their part-time work, so the pension limitations under JUPRA were due to their new full-time status, not any discrimination based on their part-time work.
Conclusion
This case emphasises the necessity of identifying the precise cause of less favourable treatment. It is insufficient to compare benefits received in similar posts. The comparison must involve distinct roles: part-time versus full-time positions.
Here, both categories were full-time Circuit Judges, with only their appointment dates and pension benefits differing. The Claimants’ previous part-time roles were irrelevant to their new Circuit Judge positions, and any prior remuneration discrepancies had been fully addressed. Thus, their claims under PTWR and PTWD were not upheld.
