Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON,LORD LLOYD OF BERWICK,LORD NOLAN,LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD,LORD MILLETT |
| Judgment Date | 11 May 2000 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [2000] UKHL J0511-4 |
| Docket Number | No 7 |
| Court | House of Lords |
| Date | 11 May 2000 |
[2000] UKHL J0511-4
HOUSE OF LORDS
Lord Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Lord Nolan
Lord Hope of Craighead
Lord Millett
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons which he gives, I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. For the reasons given by him I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the speech of my noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead. I agree with it, and for the reasons he gives I too would dismiss the appeal.
My Lords,
The appellant was formerly employed by the Secretary of State for Scotland in the Scottish Prison Service as a prison officer. He joined the prison service in August 1971 in response to an advertisement. The advertisement stated that he could retire at 55 with a gratuity and a pension based on length of service, but that every year of service beyond 20 would count as double and that if he wanted to go on working beyond 55 his pension would continue to build up. As he was already in his 30s when he joined, this offered him the prospect of financial security when he retired. He made a success of his career. In due course he was promoted to the Principal Officer (Instructor) grade. Latterly he was employed as a Principal with instructor's duties in HM Young Offenders Institution at Polmont in West Lothian.
On 31 May 1991, when the appellant was about to reach the age of 54, he was informed by an official of the Scottish Home and Health Department on behalf of the management of the prison service that the Department might continue his employment in his present position beyond the age of 55 subject to his efficiency and health record. He was told that when he reached the age of 55 he would have completed 18 years 57 days actual service for superannuation purposes. He was asked whether he wished to continue beyond that age. In his reply dated 9 July 1991 the appellant said that he wanted to continue in his position for a further five years and that he did not want to uplift any superannuation benefits until his retiral date. This meant that he would be able to carry on working without becoming disestablished, the effect of which was that he would have immediate access to his lump sum pension payment when he retired. On 25 July 1991 another official of the Department wrote to him in these terms:
"I refer to the Department's letter dated 31 May 1991 in which you were advised of the conditions under which the Department may continue your employment beyond the minimum retirement age.
In considering your reply of 9 July 1991 it has been decided that you may continue in the Service beyond age 55 subject to your continuing to undertake the full range of duties of your grade and maintaining an acceptable attendance record and level of efficiency.
It should be borne in mind, however, that retention beyond the minimum retirement age is at Departmental discretion and subject to regular review. Retirement may therefore be effected at any time and is subject to 3 months notice on either side."
On 1 April 1992 a circular was issued by the Scottish Prison Service to the Governors of all establishments announcing that from that day the prison service would be operating an Equal Opportunities Policy. It stated:
"This means that no one in the Service should be discriminated against on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual preference, disability or age."
Attached to the circular were a copy of the Scottish Prison Service Equal Opportunities Statement which had been agreed with the Trade Unions and a copy of the Scottish Prison Service Code of Practice which was said in paragraph 4 of the circular to have been designed to encourage staff to apply the Equal Opportunities Statement "to everything we do." In the concluding paragraph it was stated that all staff would receive a personal copy of the circular by 9 April 1992.
In 1994 the Scottish Prison Service became an executive agency responsible to the Secretary of State for the management of its own budget. This change prompted the carrying out of a staffing structure review. This led to the promulgation of proposals for major reforms in the grading of prison officers and their conditions of employment. The purpose of the review was to save money. But it was also designed to create vacancies which would enable younger and differently skilled recruits to be brought in from outside the service. To achieve these aims it was necessary for the prison service to lose about 1000 of its current employees. Among the steps which were to be taken to create these vacancies was the making of changes to the arrangements for retiral. The Prison Officers Association were reluctant to accept these proposals, which were not welcomed by serving prison officers. But, following a period of negotiation, the management of the Scottish Prison Service entered into an agreement with the Scottish Prison Service Trade Union Side dated 19 May 1994 regarding the principles and procedures of managing surplus staff and redundancies on terms which were acceptable to both sides. This agreement was the subject of a memorandum which was issued to all staff in July 1994 by the Chief Executive of the prison service.
Among the list of measures in the agreement to avoid or minimise compulsory redundancies was the introduction of early retirement. This was designed to target in a staged way those staff who were aged 55 and over. In an annex to the agreement it was provided that the measures which it set out would be applied solely to staff aged 55 or over at the time of the likely redundancy situation who could retire with immediate payment of pension as they were over the minimum retirement age. It was against this background that the Director of Human Resources of the Scottish Prison Service sent a circular to all staff dated 30 September 1994. They were advised that with effect from 31 March 1995 they should expect to be retired at their minimum retirement age, and they were given notice of changes with effect from that date regarding the retention of staff in service after the minimum retirement age. They were told that retention after the minimum retirement age was a matter for the Chief Executive, and that after 31 March 1995 that discretion would only be exercised for compelling management reasons, for compelling compassionate reasons or for staff who had not had the opportunity to accrue 20 years' service for pension purposes. They were also told that the following exception would be made for staff during the first six months of the implementation of the new practice:
"Staff...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart Wells Hill And Robert Thomson Hill Against Stewart Milne Limited; Gladedale (northern) Limited (formerly Bett Limited)
...contract must be read as a whole and each provision read in the light of the other provisions: Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland 2000 SC (HL) 139 at 144C-D; (2) where there are two possible constructions the court should favour the more rather than the less commercial alternative: Ra......
-
Brian And Jean Gray V. William Welsh
...details such as the house type and price were to be entered. [20] Mr McIlvride referred me to Taylor v Secretary of State for Scotland 2000 SC (HL) 139 and Aberdeen Development Co. v Mackie, Ramsay & Taylor 1977 SLT 177 and submitted that in construing these documents the applicable legal p......