Ministry of Justice v Mr S Blackford
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Lady Wise |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0003/17/LA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Part Time Workers,Not landmark |
| Date | 06 March 2018 |
| Published date | 06 March 2018 |
© Copyright 2018
Appeal No. UKEAT/0003/17/LA
UKEAT/0053/17/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 14 September 2017
Judgment handed down on 6 March 2018
Before
THE HONOURABLE LADY WISE
(SITTING ALONE)
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE APPELLANT
MR S BLACKFORD RESPONDENT
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0003/17/LA
UKEAT/0053/17/LA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellant MS CLAIRE DARWIN
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Government Legal Department
Employment Group
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
For the Respondent MR JOHN CROSFILL
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Kuit Steinart Levy LLP Solicitors
3 St Mary’s Parsonage
Manchester
M3 2RD
UKEAT/0003/17/LA
UKEAT/0053/17/LA
SUMMARY
PART TIME WORKERS
The Claimant was a Barrister and worked part-time as a Recorder. His application for
extension of office so that he could continue to sit beyond his statutory retirement age of 70
was refused by the Respondent, while a Circuit Judge, accepted as being a relevant full-time
comparator, was permitted to work on as a part-time judicial resource. Having found that the
Claimant was treated less favourably than his full-time comparator without justification, the
question of compensation was determined at a separate remedy hearing. The Respondent
appealed the Decisions on both liability and remedy.
On liability, the Tribunal’s Judgment was not illustrative of any error of law or procedural
irregularity such as would justify interference with it. There was ample material before the
Tribunal in support of its conclusion that there was a business need for more fee-paid judiciary
and that the Respondent had infringed Regulation 5 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of
Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000 by refusing the Claimant’s application for an
extension on the ground that he was a part-time worker.
The Tribunal’s Remedy Judgment was also not susceptible to challenge. Separation of oral
conclusions and a Written Judgment was permissible in the circumstances that arose, which had
required parties to carry out an arithmetical calculation. The compensation awarded was
justified by the available material and the Tribunal had not erred in its approach to the
assessment of loss.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial