London Fire Commissioner & Others v Ms R Sargeant & Others UKEAT/0137/17/LA
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Sir Alan Wilkie |
| Neutral Citation | UKEAT/0137/17/LA |
| Subject Matter | Not landmark |
| Court | Employment Appeal Tribunal |
| Published date | 12 February 2021 |
Copyright 2021
Appeal No. UKEAT//0137/17/LA (V)
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL TRIBUNAL
ROLLS BUILDING, 7 ROLLS BUILDINGS, FETTER LANE, LONDON, EC4A 1NL
At the Tribunal
On 16 December 2020
Judgment handed down on
12 February 2021
Before
SIR ALAN WILKIE
(SITTING ALONE)
(1) LONDON FIRE COMMISSIONER APPELLANTS
(2) WEST MIDLANDS FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
(3) CORNWALL FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
(4) SOUTH WALES FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITY
(1) MS R SARGEANT AND OTHERS RESPONDENTS
(2) DANIEL BEBBINGTON
(3) MICHAEL BYGRAVE
(4) MARK DODDS
(5) EMMA MCEVOY
(6) SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
(7) THE WELSH MINISTERS
Transcript of Proceedings
JUDGMENT
FULL HEARING
UKEAT//0137/17/LA
APPEARANCES
For the Appellants MR ADRIAN LYNCH
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
Instructed by:
Bevan Brittan LLP,
King’s Orchard,
1 Queen Street,
Bristol, BS2 0HQ
For the Respondent For the First to the Fifth
Respondents:
MR ANDREW SHORT
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MS LYDIA SEYMOUR
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Walkers Solicitors
Satins Hill Oast, Spongs Lane,
Sissinghurst,
Kent
TN17 2AH
For the Sixth and Seventh
Respondents
MR MARCUS
PILGERSTORFER
(One of Her Majesty’s Counsel)
and
MR RAYMOND HILL
(Of Counsel)
Instructed by:
Government Legal Department
102 Petty France,
Westminster,
London
WC2B 4TS
UKEAT//0137/17/LA
SUMMARY
AGE DISCRIMINATION
1. The Employment Tribunal did not err in law in its construction of section 61 of the Equality
Act 2010 or its impact on the availability of the defence provided by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule
22 of that Act.
2. Section 61 prohibits the Appellants from acting in a manner which discriminates on the grounds
of age and it prioritises that obligation over other provisions in the pension scheme which would
oblige them to act in that way. In this way it gives effect to the UK Government’s obligations
under EU Directive 2000/78. The defence provided by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 22 of the
Equality Act 2010 is not available to the Appellants.
3. Upon the proper construction of section 62 of the Equality Act 2010 the appellants have vested
in them the power to pass a resolution making non-discrimination alterations to the scheme of
which they are managers in respect of those members who were last employed b y them. In that
respect, also, they were not obliged by a statutory requirement to discriminate against the
Claimants on the grounds of age and so, by that route too, are unable to avail themselves of the
statutory defence provided by paragraph 1(1) of Schedule 22.
4. The provision of a cause of action against a third party for inducing an employer to breach the
principles underlying the EU Directive falls a long way short of compliance with Article 16 of
the Directive: to take necessary measures to ensure that any laws, regulations and administrative
provisions contrary to the principle of equal treatment are abolished. Community law requires
that the discriminatory provisions of the 2015 Scheme Regulations are to be overridden, set aside,
disapplied, or amended with the consequence that the appellants are not required by an enactment
to contravene the Equality Act by applying them. In that way too, if necessary, the statutory
defence is unavailable to the Appellants.
To continue reading
Request your trial