*/
The Lord Chancellor took the fight over judges’ pension reforms to the Court of Appeal, days after announcing a 2% pay rise for judges.
Two years ago 226 judges, including six High Court judges who now sit on the Court of Appeal, brought claims for age discrimination, race discrimination and equal pay at an employment tribunal over changes to their pension entitlement.
The tribunal found in favour of the judges, ruling in January 2017 that the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor had discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to leave the judicial pension scheme in April 2015 while allowing older judges to remain in the scheme.
The government appealed against the ruling but the Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case in January 2018.
The case was heard by Lord Justice Longmore, Sir Colin Rimer and Sir Patrick Elias, who have no vested interest in the outcome. The judgment is expected next year, and if the Court of Appeal upholds the previous decision it could land the Ministry of Justice with a bill of £70m to £100m.
The week before the case, the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke announced that judges would receive a 2% pay rise – well below the 32% recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for High Court judges, 22% for circuit judges and 8% for district judges.
Gauke said: ‘Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and effective remuneration is critical to the continued attraction and retention of high calibre judges.’
The Lord Chancellor took the fight over judges’ pension reforms to the Court of Appeal, days after announcing a 2% pay rise for judges.
Two years ago 226 judges, including six High Court judges who now sit on the Court of Appeal, brought claims for age discrimination, race discrimination and equal pay at an employment tribunal over changes to their pension entitlement.
The tribunal found in favour of the judges, ruling in January 2017 that the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor had discriminated against younger judges by requiring them to leave the judicial pension scheme in April 2015 while allowing older judges to remain in the scheme.
The government appealed against the ruling but the Employment Appeals Tribunal dismissed the case in January 2018.
The case was heard by Lord Justice Longmore, Sir Colin Rimer and Sir Patrick Elias, who have no vested interest in the outcome. The judgment is expected next year, and if the Court of Appeal upholds the previous decision it could land the Ministry of Justice with a bill of £70m to £100m.
The week before the case, the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke announced that judges would receive a 2% pay rise – well below the 32% recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body for High Court judges, 22% for circuit judges and 8% for district judges.
Gauke said: ‘Our independent judiciary is the cornerstone of the rule of law, and effective remuneration is critical to the continued attraction and retention of high calibre judges.’
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
AlphaBiolabs has donated £500 to The Christie Charity through its Giving Back initiative, helping to support cancer care, treatment and research across Greater Manchester, Cheshire and further afield
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
Are you ready for the new way to do tax returns? David Southern KC explains the biggest change since HMRC launched self-assessment more than 30 years ago... and its impact on the Bar
Professor Dominic Regan and Seán Jones KC present their best buys for this holiday season
Marking one year since a Bar disciplinary tribunal dismissed all charges against her, Dr Charlotte Proudman discusses the experience, her formative years and next steps. Interview by Anthony Inglese CB
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Pointillism, radical politics and social conscience. Review by Stephen Cragg KC
