Mr L Broadbent and Others v Police Federation of England and Wales: 3207780/2020 and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Date | 06 June 2023 |
| Court | Employment Tribunal |
| Subject Matter | Age Discrimination |
| Published date | 19 June 2023 |
Case Numbers: 3207780/2020, 3203913/2020,
3211894/2020, 3204870/2020 3210894/2020,
3203015/2020, 3211246/2020, 3206621/2020
1
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Claimants: (1) Mr L. Broadbent
(2) Mr C. Bulcock
(3) Ms T. Jones
(4) Mr D. Deex
(5) Mr S. Hendry
(6) Mr A. Linton
(7) Mr A. Small
(8) Mr J. Watling
Respondent: Police Federation of England and Wales
Heard at: East London Hearing Centre
On: 6-8, 13-16, 20-23, 27-30 September and 3 October 2022, 19-20
and 23-27 January 2023,
and in chambers on 6-10, 14-17 February and 6 April 2023
Before: Employment Judge Massarella
Members: Mrs B.K. Saund
Mrs M. Legg
Appearances:
For the Claimants: Ms S. Jolly KC
Ms A. Beale (Counsel)
Ms L. Veale (Counsel)
For the Respondent Mr J. Galbraith-Marten KC
Mr R. Fitzpatrick (Counsel)
RESERVED JUDGMENT
The judgment of the Tribunal is that: -
1. the Claimants’ claims of direct age discrimination succeed in relation
to Issues 7-11 and 13;
2. the Claimants’ claims of victimisation succeed in relation to Issues 7-
11 and 13;
Case Numbers: 3207780/2020, 3203913/2020,
3211894/2020, 3204870/2020 3210894/2020,
3203015/2020, 3211246/2020, 3206621/2020
2
3. the Claimants’ claims of direct age discrimination and victimisation in
relation to Issue 12 fail and are dismissed;
4. the Claimants’ claims of indirect age discrimination fail and are
dismissed.
REASONS
INTRODUCTION
Background to these proceedings
1. These proceedings concern claims for direct and indirect age discrimination
and victimisation brought by 9,989 Claimants, who are serving or former police
officers and current or former members of the Police Federation of England
and Wales (the Respondent in these proceedings, also referred to in the
documents as ‘PFEW’).
2. The claims arise from the actions taken by the Respondent in response to the
government’s introduction of a new police pension scheme in 2015 (‘the 2015
Scheme’), and the Claimants’ ultimately successful legal challenge to the
transitional provisions applicable to that scheme (the Police Pensions
Challenge (‘PPC’)).
3. The transitional provisions provided either for full protection for officers closest
to normal retirement age on 1 April 2012, by permitting them to remain in their
existing, more favourable, pension scheme, or partial protection for a specified
period by a tapering mechanism. Anybody not in those groups was afforded
no protection at all.
4. Similar changes and transitional provisions were applied across the public
sector. Groups of judges (in the McCloud case
1
, represented by Leigh Day
solicitors) and firefighters (in the Sargeant case
2
, acting through the Fire
Brigades Union (‘FBU’)) also pursued legal challenges to their own transitional
arrangements in 2015 (‘the parallel litigation’).
5. The officers instructed Leigh Day to act on their behalf and the first claims
were issued on 11 December 2015, but the claims (and subsequent appeals)
in the parallel litigation were heard ahead of the PPC.
6. The judges’ and firefighters’ claims for direct age discrimination succeeded in
the Court of Appeal in December 2018, and the respondent parties to the PPC
conceded liability in relation to the PPC age discrimination claims in August
2019.
1
McCloud v Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice and another [2019] ICR 1489 in the
Court of Appeal
2
Sargeant and others v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and others [2019] ICR 1489 in
the Court of Appeal
Case Numbers: 3207780/2020, 3203913/2020,
3211894/2020, 3204870/2020 3210894/2020,
3203015/2020, 3211246/2020, 3206621/2020
3
7. In October 2019, the Respondent in these proceedings was given permission
by the Employment Tribunal (London Central) to join the PPC as an interested
party.
8. The logistical process of placing the disadvantaged officers back into their
legacy schemes for the relevant period is ongoing, but the PPC claimants’
claims for injury to feelings and individual financial compensation have now
been settled.
9. By final order sent to the parties on 5 November 2020 (following the hearing
on 2 November 2020), the ET made a declaration that all existing claimants
had been entitled to full transitional protection for the purposes of the Police
Pensions Regulations 2015 with effect from1 April 2015.
10. It was not in dispute that the Respondent did not agree (and still has not
agreed) to provide any financial support to the PPC; nor is it disputed that the
Respondent had not agreed to provide financial support for any other equality
challenge by its members to the transitional provisions of the 2015 Scheme
until it commenced funding legal claims for its members, separately from the
PPC claims, in May 2020.
Procedural history
11. It is the Claimants’ case in these proceedings that the Respondent sought
actively to deter and obstruct them from pursuing the PPC; that it created
division and ill-feeling towards them for doing so; and that it campaigned,
communicated and presented a distorted, misleading and inaccurate
assessment of the Claimants’ legal claims, the costs and financial
consequences of those claims, and group litigation in general, as well as the
impact on other members.
12. The Respondent resists the claims in their entirety, denies that it engaged in
the alleged conduct and maintains that it sought to engage constructively with
the Government to ensure that police officers retained the best pension
scheme possible in the circumstances.
13. These proceedings were issued on 10 September 2020, after an ACAS early
conciliation period between 14 August 2020 and 9 September 2020. With one
exception, the Claimants are again represented by Leigh Day.
14. The exception was Mr Keith Flanagan. Leigh Day came off the record in his
case in February 2021. He took no active part in the proceedings; he did not
respond to a written request from the Tribunal at the beginning of the final
hearing to state whether he was still pursuing his claims; nor did he comply
with an unless order, giving him a final opportunity to confirm his position. His
claims stand dismissed.
15. There was a first preliminary hearing for case management on 1 February
2021 before EJ Burgher, at which the Claimants were given permission to
provide further particulars of their claims and the Respondent to provide a fully
pleaded response.
To continue reading
Request your trial