*/
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 reports back
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
A £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs has been made to the leading UK charity tackling international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, outlines the drug and alcohol testing options available for family law professionals, and how a new, free guide can help identify the most appropriate testing method for each specific case
By Louise Crush of Westgate Wealth Management
Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs, examines the latest ONS data on drug misuse and its implications for toxicology testing in family law cases
The odds of success are as unforgiving as ever, but ambition clearly isn’t in short supply. David Wurtzel’s annual deep‑dive into the competition cohort shows who’s entering, who’s thriving and the trends that will define the next wave
Where to start and where to find help? Monisha Shah, Chair of the King’s Counsel Selection Panel, provides an overview of the silk selection process, debunking some myths along the way
Do chatbot providers owe a duty of care for negligent misstatements? Jasper Wong suggests that the principles applicable to humans should apply equally to machines
There is no typical day in the life as a Supreme Court judicial assistant, says Josephine Gillingwater, and that’s what makes the role so enjoyably diverse
Kindness Ambassadors – coming to a courtroom near you! Valerie Charbit, Nicola Shannon KC and Professor Robin Banerjee update readers on the second phase of the project examining, and promoting, the impact of kindness and how it can fit into an adversarial system
