1) The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice 2) The Ministry of Justice v 1) Ms V McCloud and Others 2) Mr N Mostyn and Others
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Sir Alan Wilkie |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0071/17/LA |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination,Not landmark |
| Date | 29 January 2018 |
| Published date | 29 January 2018 |
Copyright 2018
Appeal No. UKEAT/0071/17/LA
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
FLEETBANK HOUSE, 2-6 SALISBURY SQUARE, LONDON EC4Y 8AE
At the Tribunal
On 11-14 December 2017
Judgment handed down on 29 January 2018
Before
SIR ALAN WILKIE
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND APPELLANTS
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR JUSTICE
(2) THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
(1) MS V McCLOUD & OTHERS
(2) MR N MOSTYN & OTHERS RESPONDENTS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
UKEAT/0071/17/LA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR JOHN CAVANAGH
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MR RAYMOND HILL
(of Counsel)
and
MS KATHERINE APPS
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Government Legal Department
One Kemble Street
London
WC2B 4TS
For Ms V McCloud & Others MR ANDREW SHORT
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MS NAOMI LING
(of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Leigh Day Solicitors
Priory House
25 St John’s Lane
London
EC1M 4LB
For Mr N Mostyn & Others MR MICHAEL BELOFF
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MR BEN JAFFEY
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Bindmans LLP
236 Grays Inn Road
London
WC1X 8HB
UKEAT/0071/17/LA
SUMMARY
AGE DISCRIMINATION
1. The Employment Tribunal considered whether the Appellants had established “a
legitimate aim” with a view to justifying the acknowledged age discriminatory effect of
operating the transitional provisions of the New Judicial Pension Scheme. The Employment
Tribunal misunderstood and/or misapplied the facts and erred in law in concluding that the
Appellants had not established a legitimate aim.
2. The Employment Tribunal considered whether, on the assumption that the Appellants
had established a legitimate aim, the means adopted, namely the operation of the transitional
arrangements, were proportionate means for pursuing a legitimate aim. In so doing the
Employment Tribunal properly applied ECJ, CJEU and domestic authorities and adopted the
appropriate level of scrutiny.
3. In applying that appropriate level of scrutiny to the facts which it had found, the
Employment Tribunal was entitled to conclude, and did not err in law in concluding, that the
Appellants had failed to justify the discriminatory effect of the transitional provisions of the
NJPS.
4. Accordingly, notwithstanding the error of law described in paragraph 1, the decision of
the Employment Tribunal on justification was not wrong in law and the Appellants’ appeal on
this issue is dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial